A. The lower court rendered a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the facts constituting the instant summary judgment (hereinafter “instant summary judgment”) on February 11, 2019, which became final and conclusive in Jeonju District Court, and the basic facts constituting the instant summary judgment (hereinafter “instant summary judgment”) and the facts constituting the injury among the facts charged in the instant case are identical, and thus, res judicata of the instant summary judgment does not coincide with those of the facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquitted portion of the lower judgment, on the grounds that the res judicata effect of the instant summary judgment significantly differs from those of the facts charged in the instant case, the means and mode of the act, and the damage legal interests and the nature

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (100,000 won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the argument of misapprehension of legal principles. Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the facts charged in the summary of the injury is as follows: “The defendant, at around 04:50 on August 16, 2018, knew of the victim D (the victim D, 21 years old) who was in the middle of the bus terminal located in the regular Eup/Myeon-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-