The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the injury of the victim was incurred before the defendant left the place, and thus, a special injury crime is not established.

B. misunderstanding of facts and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing are examined ex officio without legitimate grounds for appeal, since they were asserted in the statement of grounds for appeal by an attorney exceeding the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal

The defendant did not destroy because the victim was unable to spawn the steel structure.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the victim was in accordance with the truth of the defendant, considering the following circumstances: (a) the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below; (b) the defendant made a statement that he left the floor first at the police investigation, and (c) there was no credibility of the statement, such as reporting CCTV images, and the reversal of the statement that he was left the match; and (d) the defendant also recognized that he was shot on the shot.

On the other hand, in the crime of special injury, the hand-on refers to the position of the judicial precedent that “ insofar as the victim possesses a dangerous object or possesses a body that is intended to be used for the crime at the scene of the crime, it shall not be required to recognize the fact or have actually used it for the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do914, Mar. 30, 2007).” In light of the above, the result of the injury does not necessarily require the occurrence of a dangerous object. Thus, even if the victim did not fit the body of the victim, it does not interfere with the establishment of the special injury unless the defendant was protruding in the process of fighting with the victim.

2.3.