A. The Defendant, as a misunderstanding of the fact, did not have the victim’s head due to an empty beer disease, and determined otherwise, and recognized the establishment of a special crime of assault, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) On January 29, 2015, the victim got head on two occasions:01:35 and 01:42.

“The 112 reported the content, and the police officer F sent to the site explained the same content to F.

② On February 9, 2015, the victim: (a) at the police station on February 9, 2015, the victim: “The Defendant landed the beer knick and met it; (b) the Defendant landed her head with beer’s disease on the table three times; and (c) her face was around three times by drinking.

From the main point, the defendant and the defendant were flicked with dublings, and his inner diameter was destroyed by the bottom.

“The victim’s statement was made to the effect that it is highly reliable in light of the fact that the victim made a concrete statement to the extent unfavorable to himself/herself.

I seem to appear.

(3) The defendant in the police station on the same day is unable to memory against the fact that he/she had her head due to beer sick on the same day.

While referring to “the damaged person’s face at the main point, 3 times the injured person’s face, and bather head outside the main point.” However, he/she considered his/her head outside the main point.

“The specific statement was made.”

④ On January 30, 2015, the Defendant and the victim drafted a written agreement that they shall not be held liable for civil or criminal liability.

(5) A victim shall be present as a witness in the court below and shall be well memory as to whether he/she was the head of an empty beer disease.