The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) In relation to the victim’s shoulder injury, the Defendant was shouldered so that he/she can sit in to a fluorial intent to mislead the victim F, but the Defendant did not exercise power to the extent that he/she would inflict an injury; and (b) thus, the above injury cannot be deemed as a result of the Defendant’s act.

In addition, the defendant's act is a justifiable act due to his duties because it is intended to suppress and appeal the victim who gets disturbed by sound as a correctional public official of the detention center.

② In relation to an injury by the victim, etc., the injured party’s wife cannot be deemed to have arisen from the Defendant’s process, and even if so, the interpreter did not intentionally take the steps of the victim.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. On December 19, 2013, the Defendant was a correctional public official belonging to Sungdong detention house D in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and around 16:20, the Defendant carried the victim’s work at his own room and carried the victim’s right side by using a dynamic file with the victim’s driver, who was in charge of the victim’s work, for the reason that the victim F (42 years old) went to the ward E in the above detention house E room and talks with another inmate, and followed the victim’s right side side by taking a dynamic file with the victim’s driver, who was in charge of the victim’s moving to his seat, and going to go to the victim’s right side by taking care of approximately two weeks at the right side and the left side shoulder.

3. Determination

A. Determination on injury to a shoulder 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether the damaged person was unable to have avoided a disturbance at the workplace in charge.