A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged, and thereby recognizing the establishment of the crime of injury

B. Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the content of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.

Unless there exist extenuating circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is significantly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted not later than the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court may not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11802, Nov. 28, 2013). (b) On the grounds cited by the lower court on the grounds of recognizing the credibility of a statement made by a victim and witness of the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of each of the above statements was clearly erroneous.

There are no special circumstances to see, and there was no additional examination of evidence to doubt the credibility of each of the above statements in the trial.

At the trial of the party, the defendant applied for the fact-finding inquiry to the KNG members and J hospitals, and the defendant is notified that the response to the above fact-finding was received at the second trial of the trial of the party, even though the response to the above fact-finding was received.