beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, had had a frying with the victim G, as recorded in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, even though there was no fact that he had been fryed to the victim G, with the view of the victim’s eye
B. Even if the charge of this case is found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, namely, ① The victim G and witness H are consistent in the investigative agency and the court below, and the defendant resisted at the E-sports store in this case, and the victim, who was an employee of the next F sports store in the future, demanded that the defendant be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able
(2) At the time, the Defendant was on the floor of the new scheke, and the Defendant was on the floor of the store immediately after the instant case.
On the other hand, the victim asserts that the defendant was in a new place of requisition and that the defendant was in the front of the victim's eye.
The N's statement shows that, even if N's statement, the victim seems to clearly state that the victim was h's eye in the movement that the defendant was in progress at that time, ③ the victim's statement and H's statement as well as N's statement, it appears that the victim's eye was l't or prompt after the defendant was gypted, and ④ the witness I applied for by the court below did not witness the scene where the defendant was gypted by the defendant, but the defendant was gypted by the court of the court below.