The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the statement by the victim of the reasons for appeal, it is recognized that the defendant was on the victim's part of drinking alcohol.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person engaged in salary-counting business.

On July 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 22:00, at the D restaurant operated by the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Defendant’s wife, the victimized person, while drinking alcohol, such as Victim E (60 years of age) in the D restaurant operated by the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Defendant’s wife, went out of the victim, on the ground that the injured person’s frightencing rate of 1.4 million won is changed to be bad to the Defendant; and (b) the injured person fright away from the restaurant; and (c) the injured person fright to the victim.

In the case of drinking, the victim suffered injury, such as a spathal therapy, which requires the treatment period of about 3 weeks to the victim, in a number of times of drinking.

B. The lower court determined that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, based on the following circumstances, is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

1) At the time of the investigation by the police, the victim deemed that the defendant was at the time of drinking alcohol.

After making a statement, the prosecutor's office made two times the defendant's statement accurately.

A different statement was made (if a person was in a state of drinking, it seems that the defendant's statement was made without any wound even though he was in a state of drinking). The victim appears in this court as a witness and was present at the time of the defendant's appearance at the time of drinking one time in a state of drinking and the victim did not correctly memory the part of drinking.

In the end, the statement has not been consistent with the number of times and parts of the statement from the defendant.

Moreover, it is difficult to believe that the victim's legal statement that six paths were deprived of one time is in fact in light of the rule of experience.

2) The victim.