The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for the original trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was no fact that the Defendant, by assaulting the victim, abused the victim for about three weeks of medical treatment, inflicted an injury on the cage of the cage cages, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2,00,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) The Defendant and the victim C (the age of 58) of the instant facts charged are as follows: (a) one person engaged in three new affairs at “E” located in Busan Jin-gu, Busan.

At around 14:00 on January 17, 2017, the Defendant sustained injury on the part of the victim, on the ground that the victim was “the water to cut off the water so that the water to cut out,” on the grounds that the victim was “the water to cut off the water to the water to the nearest room of the above business establishment,” and that the victim was fluorted with the victim’s chest due to both drinking and blus, etc. and with approximately three weeks of treatment for the victim of the peas, the Defendant sustained on the part of the victim of the peas and the victim of the peas, who was in need of approximately three weeks of treatment.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and recognizing the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

3) The relevant legal principles (A) The injury diagnosis report submitted by the victim of the crime of injury generally grasps the cause of the injury based on the victim’s statement, and describes the parts and degree of the injury that the doctor mobilizeds medical expertise to observe and judged, and it is insufficient to be evidence to directly prove that the injury was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act. However, the date and time when the injury occurred and the date when the injury diagnosis report were written are close to the time and when the injury occurred, and there is a reason to suspect the special credibility in the process of issuing the injury diagnosis report.