The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) does not contain any injury upon A, but there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts based on the testimony and the written diagnosis of injury by the witness A.

2. On September 2, 2012, the summary of the instant facts charged, around 20:2, the Defendant assaulted the victim, such as drinking the victim’s entry part, when the victim was removed from the Defendant, on the 25 tons of truck truck set up and opened by the Defendant before the F Center located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul.

In this way, the defendant suffered from the victim's spathal spathy (autism in bad faith) in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the lower court’s testimony by the witness A in the lower court, the protocol of interrogation of the police preparation A, and the injury diagnosis document.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case includes the statement and the statement of injury in investigation agency A and in the court of the court below, the statement of the witness A in the court below cannot be trusted for the following reasons, and it is insufficient to find the guilty of the facts charged in this case only with the statement of injury diagnosis, so the facts charged in this case shall be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of the facts charged in this case shall be erroneous.

B. (1) The witness A from the investigative agency to the court of the court below stated that the testimony of the court below is credibility or credibility of Gap's statement, but he stated that there was no king for chronic infection or loss of majority due to the fact that the court of the court below made a statement that there was no king for chronic infection or loss of majority due (the trial record No. 49, No. 50). However, according to the injury diagnosis document submitted by him, it is chronic infection.