beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.
The defendant above.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below was erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although there was no fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim A.
B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. At around 3:30 on October 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed assault against the victim A (the age of 51) who was seated at the nearest area of the “G” located in Jinju-si; and (b) who was franc due to the sulon problem; (c) francing the victim; (d) francing the victim who was seated at the seat of Jinju-si; and (e) francing the victim who was seated out of the top place; and (e) francing the victim out of the top place; and (e) francing the victim from the victim, thereby cutting the victim out of the floor by hand, thereby breakinging or breaking the victim’s right arms, thereby causing the victim’s injury, such as salt pans, etc., of the part of
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.
C. After there was a cab between A and Si, the Defendant: (a) carried a B’s winter, brought A into the taxi, brought A in the taxi; and (b) was pushed out by hand; (c) was merely spawned up the floor; and (d) was pluck up and pluck up A’s arms.
The investigation agency consistently asserts that there is no fact of causing injury to A, or that there is no injury to A.
The following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below, and the trial court, i.e., ① the defendant, as a taxi driver, has consistently made a statement on the background of the occurrence of the case and the details of damage, etc. as a taxi driver, and ② A, while under the influence of alcohol at the time, made a dispute between the defendant and the defendant in the investigation agency and the defendant in the taxi, and made a statement on the record of evidence.