Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On January 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 13:00 on January 15, 2013, and as a result, in the case where the Defendant had been in the Dratium or the dratum room located in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, i.e., f., light dratum, etc., requiring treatment for about 14 days, by cutting down the victim’s candles.

B. The judgment of the court below held that E was arrested as a police officer F who was dispatched to the Defendant’s report and stated that E was not subject to violence from the Defendant after being arrested as a flagrant offender of the crime of assault against the Defendant and under investigation by G, the police officer F, and G, which was dispatched at the time of investigation by the relevant person at the court of the court below, and as a result, E stated that this case was investigated as a crime of assault against the Defendant by the Defendant, accompanied by a diagnosis document, and stated that E was injured by the Defendant from the Defendant to the court of the court of the court below. However, E did not explain the reason for reversal of the statement, but it was written that E did not have any external address on the ground for reversal of the statement, and the content of the injury diagnosis document is written that E and H did not fit the first police statement, and it is difficult for the police statement and the statement from the court of the court below after E and H to believe it.