The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the legitimate evidence revealed in the grounds of appeal in this case, it is sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of the injury in this case, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles against the defendant.

2. Prior to the judgment of the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal by authority, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment to the effect that the facts charged of the crime of injury which the court below acquitted was maintained as the primary facts charged, and added the facts of assault as stated in the following facts as the conjunctive facts charged, and this court permitted this, which led to different objects of the trial. Thus,

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged still is subject to the judgment of this court, despite the reason for the above ex officio reversal, and we will examine this below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On May 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 19:10 on May 5, 2012, the victim E towing the vehicle at the Dcar Center parking lot located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do; (b) provided the victim with a desire to see the vehicle; and (c) took a look at each other.

The Defendant: (a) plucked the victim’s breath; and (b) plucked and plucked the victim’s spath, thereby causing injury to the right 2 meters, spawd, spawd, and tensions, etc., which require treatment of approximately four weeks by plucking and digging up the ppuri.

B. The judgment of the court below is just based on evidence consistent with the above facts, such as E’s statement at the investigative agency and court of the court below, the statement at the witness F of the court below, the certificate of injury, and the damaged photograph, and the witness F of the court below merely stated that the defendant and E were able to breathize, and the certificate of injury and the damaged photograph are only evidence consistent with the part and degree of the injury, and therefore, the main evidence corresponding to the above facts charged is E.