Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the following facts: (a) the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) was in front of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan apartment 915 (hereinafter “victim”) and went beyond the Defendant due to the Defendant’s neck, and (b) the Defendant was forced to take the victim’s seat; and (c) even though there was no injury due to the Defendant’s being pushed over, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case in question, and the prosecutor changed the term "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, etc., with deadly weapons)" to "injury", "Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act", and applied for amendments to the indictment that deletes "a dangerous object" in the indictment No. 3 of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further because it changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was an employee of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J; and (ii) the victim was working in the “Dart” in the J operated by his father; (iii) the Defendant was able to take a bath on the street with the victim who was working in the Dart while he was on board and delivered the dart; and (iv) entered the shop toilet in the vicinity and fighting place.