beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not inflict an injury upon the defendant by cutting d's spath or spats.
2. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant: (a) was the lessee of the E building No. 505 operated by D in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul; and (b) D, on May 15, 2016, opened a door around 19:00 and removed the door of the Defendant’s slaughter, etc. and removed the door.
At around 23:50 on May 15, 2016, the Defendant discovered D from around 23:50, not his room but from around 511 due to the foregoing circumstances, and found D’s “I am locked in the south.”
“The tree flag flabed D’s flab with flab, pushed it with the wall, and flabed D’s chest part three times with drinking flab, and flabed D’s flab, which requires treatment for about 14 days for about 14 days, the chest flab, etc.
3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.
4. There is a statement or injury diagnosis at D/F investigative agencies and court of the original instance from the evidence that seems to conform to the facts charged in the instant case.
First, the statements in D's investigative agency and the court of original instance are as follows, which can be acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., D's statement at the time of the preparation of the complaint stating that "D's 511 came out, and D's 511 was used to close the door, and the defendant committed an assault." However, on June 25, 2016, D's statement that "at the time of the investigation by the police, the defendant was 511, and the defendant committed an assault." The statement at the time of the investigation by the police was made is inconsistent. ② At the time of the instant case, the police officer was called in accordance with the defendant's 112 report at the time of the instant case, and the police officer was dispatched to the police officer, and the situation was that the defendant brought about the defendant's hand at D's 511, and thereafter, D's statement was made.