A. The victim D (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) has credibility in its statement from the investigation stage to the original trial stage, such as where the victim D consistently states that “the defendant suffered an injury by assaulting the defendant” and consistently.

According to the evidence submitted by the court below, such as the victim's statement, etc., the court below acquitted the victim of the injury among the facts charged in this case, although the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim was injured. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion

B. In light of the fact that the lower court ought to be found guilty on the criminal facts of an injury on which the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (one million won of fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the injury among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the indictment, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A thorough examination by comparing the judgment of the court below with records, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the part where the victim was provided medical treatment at the hospital on January 27, 2016, which was different from that of ship, buckbucks, and head, the judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

B. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.