The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. According to CCTV images, it is confirmed that there is a strong appearance of a victim of a brush, as the Defendant had a crush, as the crush of a crush, and in light of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to inflict bodily injury on the brush of the victim’s bridge located at a distance of 3 meters from the 3 meters from the crush, the court below dismissed the public prosecution against the Defendant, even though the Defendant intentionally crupted the frush and caused excessive injury to the victim. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (as to Defendant B), is too uneased and unfair. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (as to Defendant B, KRW 4,000,000).

Prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts

A. On May 26, 2016, Defendant A around 03:10 on May 26, 2016, at the consignee of the “E cafeteria” in Busan East-gu, the summary of this part of the facts charged, Defendant A, on the ground that the victim F (21 Dose) is under the influence of alcohol and is fright, and sat down, on the ground that the victim F (21 Dose) is under the influence of alcohol, Defendant A was at the discretion of the consignee who is seated by the victim (3 cm wide, 4 cm long) and the glass angle generated by the loss of the victim’s right side.

As a result, the defendant A puts the victim into the right slive slive slives that require treatment between approximately 21 days.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant intentionally left the place of action as far as the evidence presented by the Prosecutor alone was excluded from a reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to recognize (in accordance with the investigation report on the 64th page of the evidence record, the Defendant stated on the CCTV recording page that the fact that the Defendant was frightened is confirmed, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, and eventually, the Defendant cannot be punished as the crime of injury, and only the crime of injury caused by negligence can be established.