Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. As to the judgment of the court below 1, which is erroneous (as to the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2), the defendant did not commit violence only after the victimized person.

2) As to the judgment of the court below No. 2, only the victim alone runs away, and there was no intention to commit assault against the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act in all of the judgment below (as to the judgment below).

2. In the judgment of the court below upon ex officio reversal following the consolidation, the appeal cases against the judgment below were consolidated, and each crime of the judgment below constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

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

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court’s judgment, it is clearly recognized that the Defendant, not the victim following the lawful adoption of the evidence, was released from the victim’s own arms to the lower court. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, on the ground that the lower court’s judgment erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the judgment of the court below of the second instance, there is an error of law by misconceptioning the facts that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, since the defendant was found to have been able to knick the victim who was the defendant and kn up on the front floor and kn up on the front line.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, each of the lower courts also asserted the same as above in the trial. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment included the method of assault and the degree of the content of the property damage, recognized based on the duly admitted and investigated evidence.