The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant misunderstanding the fact that the victim was pushed ahead of the victim, or that the victim was injured by this, cannot be deemed to have suffered an injury.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged is sufficiently guilty in light of the following: (a) the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the lower court’s trial; (b) the victim’s statement and the victim’s statement consistently; (c) the sick name and the part of the injury indicated in the written diagnosis of the injury to the victim coincide with the photograph taken by the victim’s statement and the damaged part; (d) the victim did not have any other circumstances that could cause injury; and (e) the victim had been maintaining a degree of a degree of a disability on the part

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim was over the part of the defendant and suffered injury as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant was found to have a shouldered with the victim. Meanwhile, according to the evidence above, the victim stated that ① the victim was sealed by the investigative agency to defend the defendant's act, but the victim was the same as that of the defendant's body at this time, and the victim was in contact with the defendant's body (the 42th page of the investigation record), and the court of the court below did not hear the statement that she would go from the defendant, and that she did not go back with each other (the 49th page of the trial record). At the time of the case, it appears that the defendant did not unilaterally use the victim's tangible power, but did not use the victim's own tangible power, and that the victim was tight with each other.