A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. Of the facts constituting a crime of misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below, in relation to the part concerning the crime of 2014 highest 5085, the defendant recognized that the defendant was guilty of the victim's head, but there is no fact that the part of the victim's head was drinking.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. B ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination, the Prosecutor’s 1-A of the facts charged in this Court No. 2014Kadan4017

In each of the above paragraphs, each “in the vicinity of a fixed place of closedness” was applied for changes in the contents of “in the vicinity of the Seoul Southern Terminal located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on June 2013,” and since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

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

B. In light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake, namely, the victim stated that the defendant was at the time of leaving the police station specifically and consistently, and the defendant was at the time of leaving the head of the victim's head, and the statement in the written diagnosis submitted by the victim also conforms to the victim's above statement, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground that the above reasons for reversal of the judgment below are the following reasons.