beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not have committed a crime of injury to the Defendant, since there was no fact that he was the victim D in front of the instant music hole, and the wife suffered at the time was the victim's own injury.
B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the fact that D had consistently met with the Defendant from the investigative agency, and the Defendant also stated that D had been aware of the fact that D had taken place only once within the above music hole in the court of the court below, and that only this part of D’s assertion has been admitted, the fact that the Defendant used the inside part of D by hand from the above “C Music Hall” to the inside part can be acknowledged.
However, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) committed an injury to D, such as a failure to examine the inner part, which requires treatment for about 28 days, by putting the head of D on the road in front of the above music hole; and (b) committed an assault on the inner part of D; and (c) stated consistently that: (a) even if the Defendant acknowledged that the Defendant was at the time of the above music hole within the investigative agency to the court of the trial, he did not injure or assault the Defendant; (b) at the court of the first instance, G was at the entrance of the above music hole; (c) at the court of the trial, G was at the entrance of the above music hole, with the Defendant, going beyond the body of the Defendant and the head of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant testified that D was not a citizen; and (c) D testified that at the time of the lower court and the court of the trial, the Defendant did not have any facts.