A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

A. According to CCTV images and the legal statements, etc. by witnesses at the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine alone, even though the Defendant could have abused the victim.

B. The lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 300,00) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the party, the Prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Amendment to the indictment to the effect that “the Defendant assaulted the victim’s left part of the part of the instant facts charged to the victim by breaking the victim’s bath at the time, place, and so on, the Defendant used the victim’s desire at the above time, place, and so on.” The Defendant applied for permission to change the part of the instant facts charged to the victim to “the Defendant abused the victim’s dead part by taking the victim’s bath at the victim’s hand, but the subject of the judgment was substantially changed.”

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed on this ground.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court: ① According to the CCTV video image (Evidence No. 14, 10 minutes to 50 minutes of the evidence record), it is confirmed that the defendant returned to the victim of the victim, and that there was a dispute between the defendant and the victim. ② The defendant also confirmed the above image at the second trial date of the trial of the party, and the fact that there was a physical contact with the victim. ③ The victim stated in the court of the court of the court below that “the defendant was sold by the defendant due to his/her hands, and the appraisal was made by his/her hand,” and the victim stated in the court of the court of the court of the court below to the effect that “the victim was a knife that the defendant was actually sold by his/her hand and the appraisal was made by his/her hand.” (See Article 59 of the record of the trial)

Although Defendant alleged to the effect that the above physical contact alone cannot be seen as a assault, the assault in Article 260 of the Criminal Act was committed against a person’s body.