The judgment below

The part of conviction and the part not guilty as to the injury caused by violence on September 6, 2015 shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements made by the victim and E, the Defendant was found to have committed a crime of bodily injury by assault on September 6, 2015.

In addition, one party is the summary of the vinyl, which is the residence of the victim, and the warehouse is the place under joint control of the victim and village residents, so the crime of intrusion upon the defendant is also established.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred thousand won in 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. (1) The facts constituting the crime are described in paragraph (1) below the summary of the factory laboratory on September 6, 2015.

(2) The lower court determined that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged on the ground that each of the victim’s statements, a witness E statement, a criminal investigation report (the hearing of the victim E’s testimony) is difficult to believe, and the victim’s injury diagnosis statement appears to have been made based on the victim’s statement after about nine months from the date of the occurrence of the instant case.

(3) According to the records of the deliberation of the political party, the fact that the victim filed a complaint with the defendant on July 18, 2016 and submitted a medical certificate of injury (the page 8 of the record of evidence) in the preparation of N Jeong National Assembly members issued on June 20, 2016, after about nine months from the date of the occurrence of the instant case as the accompanying documents, which was issued on June 20, 2016.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it can be recognized that the Defendant sustained an injury by assaulting the victim, by comprehensively taking into account all the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the judgment below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is reasonable.

① On September 7, 2015, the date following the date of the occurrence of the instant case, the victim was diagnosed as “Woman’s salt, tension, salt pans, and tensions of the hump, etc.” by using the dump fluor, dum, etc. of the dump.