Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. From July 10, 2015, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles or mistake of facts, only sustained an injury in line with the food waste bags that the victim I had experienced on July 10, 2015, and did not engage in the victim’s bath as stated in the second core criminal facts.

At around 09:00 on July 11, 2015, the following day, the Defendant told the victim D, the mother of the above I, who was the victim, of the Defendant, to the effect that “The victim was able to harm the Defendant,” saying “The victim was fluorily in the form of a carculate,” and called “Neas immediately in the form of a carculate,” but there was no desire for the victim as stated in the first instance judgment.

However, each of the facts charged in this case is found guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The punishment that the court below sentenced to the defendant (the first judgment of the court below: the fine of 500,000 won, the second judgment: the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant filed each appeal against the lower judgment. On July 25, 2016, the appellate court rendered a decision to jointly deliberate on each of the appeals cases against the Defendant.

Each crime of the judgment below shall be sentenced to one punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant were all reversed.

However, even if the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, each of the victims as stated in the facts of the lower judgment.