beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim by scaming the victim’s her cream and walking next her scam.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. The victim made a statement that “the victim was clicking from the defendant and walking side clicking. At the time, medical expenses were borne at the time and went to the hospital three days after the date.” The victim received medical treatment in the medical records of the IP and the rehabilitation department on November 10, 2018 by means of a click click clickbus, the right side click, and the victim received treatment from the victim two days prior to the date.
B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s witness, who was the witness of the lower court, stated that the Defendant could not pay KRW 30,000,000 among the hospital treatment expenses, the victim told the Defendant that the victim was at the right chest due to the contact with the Defendant.
“The Defendant testified to the effect that it was the same opportunity as that of the king’s bridge injury as the victim alleged in the facts charged, but the victim’s bridge on the bridge seems to be irrelevant to the crime of this case on October 5, 2018.
(2) Since the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit. (b) In comparison with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and in the event that the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials were not submitted in the