Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant was only sealed by the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged, and there was no fact that the victim inflicted bodily injury as stated in the facts charged.

B. Each sentence (the first judgment of the court below: the fine of KRW 500,000, and the second judgment: the fine of KRW 1.5 million) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the court below sentenced each of the above judgments to the defendant, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and this court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes of the court below 1 and 2 against the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below against the defendant cannot escape from all of the reversal.

B. However, the defendant's second instance judgment's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and thus, we examine this.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the second instance court, namely, ① the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the effect that “the Defendant was suffering from the Defendant’s satisfeing outside the packing satisfe two times with the Defendant’s satching, batfing, leading and damaging the bat,” ② there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement, and there is no injury diagnosis letter against the victim.