A. The fact that the defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts is punished by the victim's head debt collection, etc., or the injury of the victim is not caused by the defendant's assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On August 23, 2013, around 01:00, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was assaulted by the victim E (the victim E) on the ground that the victim’s head debt was not 40,000 won at a restaurant, thereby getting up the victim’s head debt up to the floor. As a result, the victim exceeded the victim, and the right trees were plucked, and the victim suffered from the injury to the right leg and the outer frame, which require treatment for about six weeks.

Accordingly, the defendant suffered bodily injury by committing assault to the victim.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant himself recognized the victim’s head debt and the victim’s head debt. ② The victim was receiving medical treatment for the injury of the victim upon finding the hospital on the day of the instant case; ③ the result of the medical advisory conference (in the investigation record No. 69 page) submitted to the prosecutor’s office, it appears to have occurred at least one to two days before August 23, 2013 when the EX photograph was taken. The occurrence of the instant case is a new wall on August 23, 2013. Since the victim was found to have reached a considerable time until the victim was exposed to the low hospital, the above opinion and the victim could not be deemed to have suffered any injury on the date of the instant medical consultation, and the result of the medical consultation cannot be deemed to have been compatible with the above opinion.