beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below's conviction of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as it is difficult to view that the completeness of the body is damaged, the function of life is hindered, or the state of health is not changed due to the passage of the trial day, as it does not interfere with the daily life even without receiving treatment, and it is naturally cured.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, it is recognized that the defendant had a significant blood transfusion on the part of the victim's left part by shouldering the part of the victim's left part (see, e.g., evidence No. 45 of the record), which does not interfere with daily life, nor can it be deemed as an extremely minor body that can natural therapy within a short time, and it is difficult to view that the situation of the victim's physical health is inferior and that there is no impediment to the function of life.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as pointed out by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Since the Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant and the Defendant were examined.