beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the injured person suffered an injury by self-harming his/her fingers by negligence; and (b) the accused did not inflict an injury upon the injured person.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged of this case, around October 26, 2016, the Defendant, at the D office located in Suwon-si Construction Site D Co., Ltd. located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, for the reason that the Defendant did not properly comply with the Victim E (46 years of age)’s order of service, the head of the Working Group in the above field, against the Defendant, set up against the Defendant at the time of the Defendant, and set the chest against the Defendant, and then set the Defendant at the time of drinking, the Defendant would be against the Victim E (46 years of age), who attempted to prevent the Defendant from displaying the lost value, which is a dangerous thing at the scene, and the removal tool to prevent the defrising.
As a result, the defendant carried dangerous objects and inflicted injury on the left-hand salt, etc. requiring medical treatment for about two weeks.
B. The lower court determined that the victim made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case at the investigative agency and the lower court. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed by the evidence of the judgment, namely, ① the circumstance in which the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, and how the victim was injured, how the victim was injured, and how the victim was injured, and how the victim was unable to find contradictions to each of the statements, ② the victim made a statement without concealment, such as the contents that the victim could be somewhat unfavorable to himself, and ③ the victim was issued a summary order of a fine due to such special assault (No. 2017 Gowon District Court Decision 2141). ④ The victim was not a person who is not a contractor but a person who was exempted from the obligation to pay daily allowances to the defendant by doing so.