The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant and the victim have damaged the victim's cell phone far away from the floor while fighting the body, and there is no fact that the defendant left the victim's cell phone on the floor.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim guilty of this part of the charges by adopting the interrogation protocol and written statement in the investigative agency of the victim without admissibility as evidence.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In a case where it is impossible to examine a witness summons for a person who needs a statement in court because the witness summons has not been served on several occasions and the location of the witness was unknown, etc., the examination in court constitutes “when a person is unable to make a statement due to an appearance in the official ruling” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, in a case where there is little room for false entry in the preparation of the contents of the statement or protocol, and there is no specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or arbitability of the contents of the statement, the admissibility of the protocol or written statement shall be recognized.

In this case, the court below adopted the victim E as a witness and served the summons in sequence to the "Seoul Gangnam-gu I, 25 and the Gangnam-gu J, Seoul, the domicile of which is the resident registration of the Gangnam-gu I, 25 and E, which is the address in the police interrogation protocol of the victim E and the police interrogation protocol of the victim E, but all of the summons was impossible to be served, and the E phone number (K) recorded in the above interrogation protocol was not sent, but all of which was not a telephone call, and the court below did not know the location of each address.