beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.
First of all, when the victim drinks the defendant, the victim took the head debt of the defendant, and in such a situation the head debt of the defendant was exceeded.
After all, the defendant, who was not the victim's head debt, did not keep his head debt, was only the victim's neck in order to restrain it.
2. Determination
A. The mere fact that a witness’s statement is consistent in the main part of the statement is somewhat inconsistent with the statement on other minor matters, etc. does not unreasonably deny the credibility of the statement (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do12112 Decided August 20, 2009). (b) Considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim is sufficiently recognized as stated in the judgment of the court below.
1) The victim’s statement is consistent and credibility in major parts, such as the method and degree of violence used by the Defendant, response to the violence by the victim, and the part of damage. [The Defendant saw the victim’s bat within the area of the victim’s PC, leading the victim’s batch.
Therefore, the victim may bring about flabbage loss.
The defendant tried to open the entrance according to the defendant.
The victim was faced with both hands of the victim and face by the head of the victim. The victim was faced with the back head of the defendant.
The injured party was punished by one another, and the injured party exceeded the back of the defendant's back.
In such a state, the defendant gets a knife of the victim and brings a knife of the back.
. The statement of the court below was made. The detailed part of the defendant's head (the investigative agency stated that it is the right luminous part, and the court below stated that the defendant first arrived at the investigative agency, and the defendant first arrived at it) and the process of the respondent's escape (the court below stated that it was the right luminous part).