Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact-finding (influence part) the Defendant did not harming the Victim F in the context of its reasoning, and only the Victim F did not go beyond the Defendant’s breath.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. Legal principles (conform part) victim D’s new housing construction work does not constitute a business worthy of protection, and the defendant’s act is merely a passive resistance against the victim D’s tort.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it was recognized that the Defendant had inflicted an injury on the victim F in excess of the victim F, as indicated in its reasoning. 2) Although the Defendant consistently denied this part of the facts charged from the investigation stage to the court of the first instance, considering the circumstances properly presented by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim F in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

A. The victim F consistently made statements that correspond to this part of the facts charged in the investigative agency and the original trial court. ① The victim F’s statements are not only clearly and clearly clearly and in detail the contents of the statements, but also are also aware that they did not directly experience.