Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

A. In fact, the Defendant merely demanded a church to find the new wall to find it early, and there was no disturbance. At that time, only four persons including the victim and his children assault the Defendant at that time, and there was neither the Defendant nor the Defendant who inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the search list and text of the Supreme Court’s judgment that reversed ex officio according to the final judgment, the Defendant was sentenced to one and half years of imprisonment on November 10, 2017 by intimidation, etc. at the Seoul Eastern District Court and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 20, 2018. The instant criminal facts are in the relation of concurrent crimes with each of the above crimes for which punishment becomes final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment is determined in consideration of equity in the case where a judgment is concurrently rendered pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower judgment is no longer maintained.

However, in this case, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim consistently stated in the investigative agency on the part of the developments of the assault, and was in a church at the time with the Defendant and the victim.

G. F The investigative agency stated the victim's statement almost the same as the victim's statement, and added up to the contents written in the written diagnosis of injury to the victim issued on the day of the crime, it is fully recognized that the defendant had avoided the disturbance in the church and inflicted an injury on the victim.

On the other hand, as alleged by the defendant, body fighting between the defendant and the victim at that time is true, but it seems that it was not prosecuted as a crime of assault because it did not want a mutual punishment, and there is no other reason to deny the illegality of the defendant's act.

Therefore, it is true.