Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

2. The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below regarding the first, second, and third cases of appeal, and the court of the court of the court below decided to hold concurrent trials. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from all reversal.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated on August 2, 2012 (the first instance judgment) the victim D is consistently explaining the circumstances during which the victim was assaulted by the Defendant in detail at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court to the effect that the victim was pushed down twice the chest, and the Defendant also made a dispute with the victim with the victim at the investigative agency, and recognized the fact that there was a physical contact with the victim D by the Defendant’s husband, and that there was a physical contact with the victim D by the Defendant’s husband. In so doing, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.

나. 2013. 4. 25. 폭행의 점(제2 원심판결) 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피해자 D는 피고인이 발로 다리 부위를 1회 찼다고 명확하게 진술하면서 피고인으로부터 폭행을 당한 경위를 자세하게 설명하고 있는 점, 피고인이 사건 당시 피해자에게 욕설을 하면서 피해자 집의 대문을 발로 차는 소리가 피해자의 휴대전화기에 녹음되어 있는데(증거기록 23쪽), 피해자의...