The judgment below

The part of the special injury is reversed.

As to the special injury in the judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the misapprehension of legal principles, there is time interval between the defendant's act of having the victim I as a beer's disease and the act of inflicting the above victim's injury, and the above victim's injury is not caused by beer's disease. Thus, this can only be a substantive concurrence between the crime of special assault and the crime of bodily injury and the crime of special injury cannot be established.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (3 million won in punishment and 1 year in imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the injured person suffered from the misapprehension of legal principles is not directly caused by the use of dangerous objects by the defendant, so long as the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim with the intent to display dangerous objects or carry the body or body near the body and body under the intent to use them at the scene of the crime, this constitutes a special crime of injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003; 2007Do914, Mar. 30, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was a beer disease while the victim gave a bath to the above victim, and in this case, the defendant "the victim was suffering from the victim," and the victim was found to have promptly inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim with the defect that "the son was born."

On the other hand, if the facts are identical, the defendant's act of having been a beer's disease and the act of inflicting an injury on the victim was an act close to time and place, and was committed by carrying beer's disease, which is dangerous to the defendant, and thereby, the victim was injured.

It is reasonable to see that the above victim's injury is not caused by beer disease, but by beer disease, it does not affect the establishment of special crime of injury.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendant regarding the wrongful argument of sentencing.