beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case, where he had a verbal dispute with the victim, and had a gramconcule on the carculine in the wall of the ward. While the rocon faced with the wall, the rocon was faced with the wall and the rocon was damaged by the victim’s face, and the roconization was merely damaged by the victim, and it cannot be said that there was an intention to inflict an injury on the Defendant. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court. In other words, the Defendant stated in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court that the victim took a bath for the children of the Defendant while drunk, and that the victim was faced with the victim’s abruptor, and that the victim was unable to accurately memory the victim’s injury under the influence of alcohol at the investigative agency, but the victim stated that the victim was aware of the victim’s head at the time of drinking, and that the victim was aware of the victim’s injury. While the victim was at the court of the first instance, the victim was not satisfying, at the time of the crime of this case, the victim was seated between the television and cooling at the defendant’s home room at the time of the crime of this case, and the victim stated that the victim was aware of the victim’s injury by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victim was aware that the head was 1.5 centimeters or less; and (b) the victim could have suffered injury to the victim.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. Unreasonable sentencing.