All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the police investigation, the victim said that there was no assault by the victim at the time of the police investigation.

Nevertheless, the police officer continued to ask the victim whether or not the defendant was living or not (the statement made by the victim due to coercion by the police officer is considered to the effect that it is inadmissible as evidence for illegal collection). 2) The defendant did not look at the victim.

The victims are under the influence of alcohol from time to time, which is caused by these injuries.

3) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “A protocol in which a public prosecutor or judicial police officer recorded a statement of a person other than the Defendant is prepared in accordance with legitimate procedures and methods, and such protocol is proved by a statement or video recording product at the preparatory hearing of the original statement or the trial date, or by any other objective method. The Defendant or defense counsel could have examined the original statement at the preparatory hearing date or the trial date, if it was possible to examine the original statement at the preparatory hearing date or the trial date.

Provided, That it shall be limited to cases where it is proved that the statements recorded in the protocol have been made under particularly reliable circumstances.

"........"

Here, the term "the authenticity of establishment" means the formal authenticity of the protocol, such as seal, signature and seal, and the substantive authenticity that the content of the protocol is written as stated by the original person who made the original statement (Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2112 delivered on August 23, 2002). (B) The victim admitted the formal authenticity of the police statement in the court of original instance, but it is recognized that the formal authenticity of the police statement was made in the court of original instance.