Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not assault the victim, and CCTV images, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, were compilations disadvantageous to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted a similar assertion in the lower court as to a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining specific circumstances.

CCTV images produced by the court below as evidence were operated and edited

No such circumstance may also be found.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant continues to deny the crime and did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant has been subject to a minor fine for ten years prior to the minor fine, that the degree of the victim's injury is not much serious, and that the defendant is in Grade I with visual disability is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the age of the defendant, sex, circumstances leading to the crime, circumstances after the crime, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, etc., the sentence of the court below is considered unfair.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment below is ruled again as follows.

[Grounds for the new judgment] Criminal facts and the summary of evidence against the defendant recognized by the court is identical to the corresponding column of the judgment below. Thus, it is true in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.