beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant did not assault the victim, the court below found him guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly examined and duly admitted by the court below, namely, (i) G and H, all of which were the victim and his/her former act, consistently make a statement from the police investigation to the court of the court below that the defendant, who was suffering in white banks at the time of the trial of the court below, was assaulting the victim’s neck and twice his/her head by drinking, and (ii) there seems to be no reason to regard the defendant as one of the participants in the assault; and (iii) there is no special reason to regard that the defendant made a false statement to be disadvantageous to the defendant, and there is no reason to deem that the defendant made a false statement to be disadvantageous to the defendant. In full view of the following circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used the victim’s neck at the time and place specified in the facts charged and assault twice the head head by drinking
(On the other hand, the witness I stated that the defendant did not assault the victim, unlike the above witness's statement, but I stated that he was not at the place of crime as stated in the facts charged at the time. Therefore, the above testimony of the defendant is difficult to believe.
3. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing is that the Defendant’s additional assaulted by the victim, who was under the influence of his eye at the time of the Defendant’s b’s breath by the assault, is considerably poor, and that the case is not somewhat weak. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not seem to have entirely reflect on the party’s judgment, and the Defendant is in the year 2013.