Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Fact mistake: Although the victim, who is the spouse, had his body attached to the victim's body in order to speak the defect that the victim intends to leave at the time and place stated in the facts charged, the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim.

Therefore, the defendant committed the crime of injury.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, it should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt. However, it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as having probative value should not be permitted to deviate from the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of a fact that cannot be matched with the facts required based on logical and empirical rule, rather than all questions and correspondences. As such, inasmuch as the circumstance favorable to the defendant exists in relation to the recognition of facts, the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be deemed to be included in a reasonable doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do466, Oct. 11, 2007). Meanwhile, the injury diagnosis submitted by the victim of the crime of injury is insufficient to be a direct proof of the fact that the injury described therein was caused by the Defendant’s criminal act, but the date of diagnosis of the injury and the date of preparation of the injury diagnosis letter is the injury.