A. Since the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant did not assault the victim A without credibility, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim stated that "the defendant committed an assault against himself/herself (the victim) at the investigative agency to the court of the court below," and consistently stated that "the defendant committed an assault against himself/herself at the time of his/her bath while taking a bath, and the victim taken a shoulder by his/her photograph, and the victim submitted an injury diagnosis corresponding thereto. 2) The defendant stated that he/she had the victim at the time of his/her face-to-face, but the victim stated that he/she had the bridge from the defendant in his/her face-to-face, but the victim did not have any her face-to-face only after the occurrence of the case, and the victim stated that he/she was guilty of his/her cell phone, but the crime of larceny committed by the defendant by changing his/her subsequent statement was subject to a disposition of non-guilty

Although the victim made a statement in a somewhat exaggeration of the Defendant’s act of violence, it appears to be the attitude from the intent to deny his criminal act in the process of being tried as co-defendant in the original trial and to transfer more responsibility to the other party in the process of being tried as co-defendant. The thief crime is deemed to have no cellular phone in the process of disputing the Defendant, and the victim made a statement in a somewhat exaggeration of suspicion of the Defendant in such objective circumstances. The physical part related to the thief medical examination stated in the injury diagnosis statement is the right side of the charge of this case.