1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 00:55 on February 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) stopped a taxi on the ground that the Plaintiff, who is a taxi driver, operated the taxi in a wrong direction; and (b) inflicted injury on the Plaintiff’s face at least three times in drinking (hereinafter “the instant assault”); and (c) caused the Plaintiff to undergo treatment for four weeks, such as by cutting down the Plaintiff’s face on three occasions.

B. The Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million due to the above criminal facts and filed a request for formal trial on the grounds of objection, but was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million on December 8, 2015 (No. 2015 Goju District Court Branch Decision 2015MaMa305), and the Defendant appealed, but the Defendant appealed on May 30, 2017, but was sentenced to the dismissal judgment.

(Reasons for Recognition) The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, which are obvious facts to this court, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts acknowledged as above, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the assault of this case.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 2 of the previous medical fee No. 1, the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 740,000 due to the defendant's assault of this case. In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's injury of the plaintiff's injury caused by the defendant's assault of this case cannot be deemed to have been caused by the defendant's assault of this case. However, according to the above evidence, the defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 2 million due to the defendant's assault of this case, and according to the above evidence, the plaintiff could be recognized that the plaintiff was issued a medical certificate due to the flasation after visiting the department C on the day when the assault of this case occurred, and accordingly, the plaintiff's flasction of this case is deemed to have a causal relationship with the assault of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above argument of the defendant is without merit.