The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

After a taxi stops, the Defendant only assaults the victim D (hereinafter referred to as "victim") after the taxi stops, and did not assault the victim who was operating the taxi.

A victim's statement in an investigative agency and court that he/she was assaulted by a defendant during the taxi operation is inconsistent, contrary to the rule of experience, and the statement is inconsistent with the rule of experience, so there is no credibility.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

1) The victim stated consistently from the investigative agency to the court below and the trial of the case. The victim made a statement to the effect that “The victim’s neck, who was operating a taxi, started to cut the victim’s neck into his left arms, and 4 to 5 times the head of the victim’s head, which was urgent. The victim did not immediately stop because 4 to 5 times the bus was in the right line, although she tried to stop the taxi, but she was in the right line. The victim did not immediately stop her phone when she reported 12. However, the victim’s phone was “I, hur,” and she was only “I, hurd and hurd,” but the victim’s son’s neck was again flading the victim’s neck while driving a taxi. As such, the Defendant’s statement that the victim was assaulted by the Defendant during the taxi operation is consistent with the rule of experience, and the victim’s statement that the victim was unable to report 1 to 12 times the victim’s she reported s s stro.

However, according to the victim's statement at the trial court, first, the victim seems to have been able to have been ethyl to some extent.

In addition, this case where the defendant under the influence of alcohol took a bath and assault against the victim without any reason.