beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to the facts of the crime of injury as indicated in the judgment below, the Defendant: (a) around February 28, 2016, attached the back clothes of the victim on the back part of the victim; (b) did not inflict any injury on the victim; and (c) around March 2, 2016, there was only a franchis to cut the cellular phone of the victim; and (d) did not inflict any injury by assaulting the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of injury in each judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.
B. The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendant to the sentencing unfair is too unreasonable. (The penalty amount of KRW 3,00,000)
2. Determination
A. Determination of the lower court on the assertion of factual mistake 1) The lower court: (a) stated to the effect that the victim inflicted each injury on the victim as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, in a relatively concrete and consistent manner, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court; (b) the victim was provided with a chest-racing treatment by removing the victim from the emergency room of the Central Hospital on February 28, 2016; and (c) the victim was provided with a brudy treatment of the right 8rd to the right by visiting the Central Hospital around March 4, 2016; and (c) the Defendant did not seem to have any obvious frame in X-raray’s first record on February 28, 2016.
As stated in the purport that “the victim was not injured by scarcity,” although the victim asserts that he was not injured by scarke, it is possible to explain the possibility of “scarden fracture” in the above emergency record. Inasmuch as the victim was diagnosed by the above hospital on March 2, 2016, and the victim was diagnosed by scarke at the above hospital on March 2, 2016, it is not acceptable to accept the above assertion by the defendant, and ④ The police L who was dispatched to the scene at the time of committing the crime on February 28, 2016 at the court of the court below, “the victim was sealed by scard part.”
The defendant, as a drinking, had a part of the victim's inside.
The statement was made to the effect that “.........”