beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) did not assault the victim, and the victim did not suffer any injury due to the assault by the defendant.
2. Determination
A. On June 23, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 21:00 on June 23, 2017, at the “G restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant: (b) brought the Defendant’s scam for the Defendant’s scam on the ground that the damaged was recklessly frighted the name of the team leader H, who was frightened and frighted; and (c) against the Defendant’s scam scam, scambling and scambling, and scambling with the victim, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as the Defendant’s scam scam and scambling, which requires medical treatment for about 14 days.
B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim was also the defendant, and the victim was also the same as the defendant, and it can be acknowledged that the victim was engaged in flabing.
B. As to whether the injured party was injured by the Defendant’s act, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the above evidence, are as follows: (i) the Defendant: (a) the injured party dumpeded on his flaps by setting up his flaps; (b) the victim was removed from the injured party; (c) the injured party was investigated as the case; and (d) the injured party was accused of the injured party; and (e) the injured party was investigated as the case; and (e) the injured party filed a written diagnosis; (b) the injured party was submitted on June 28, 2017, five days after the case occurred; (c) the injured party was issued a written diagnosis that requires treatment for 14 days after the diagnosis on the flaps, left-hand side, the left-hand side, and the left-hand side was diagnosed; and (d) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was written that no separate treatment was provided due to the above injury. In light of the above, the facts charged in the instant case’s judgment is reasonable.