Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) In fact, the Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts constituting the first instance judgment, and the Defendant’s wife incurred by the victim is insignificant and the need for separate treatment is not deemed to constitute injury in the crime of injury.

2) It is deemed that the victim sustained injury due to misunderstanding of legal principles and behavior of the defendant.

Even if the defendant's act is against the defendant's will, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act as a behavior to show out the victim who entered the defendant's clinic.

B. The lower court’s judgment 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, even if the Defendant affixed a tape on CCTV or returned the direction of CCTV, the utility of CCTV cannot be reduced, and the Defendant did not intend to commit the crime of damage to property.

The defendant's act of removing a guide is for commercial U.S. dollars, and the CCTV that sees the direction of CCTV or put a tape on CCTV is to prevent the CCTV that unfairly oversees himself/herself, so it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2) The 2nd sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant filed an appeal against all of the judgment below, and the argument of each of the judgment below against each of the judgment below was combined in the trial.

Each of the judgments of the court below that sentenced the same kind of punishment against the defendant is a concurrent crime 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 as it is

However, notwithstanding each of the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether there was an assault in the judgment of the court of first instance