The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. While the statement of K, L, and M, that the Defendant was not aware of the facts, the credibility of each of the statements of K, L, and M, while the statements of F, G, I, H, J, and E, which seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are not reliable or insufficient to recognize the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service) that sentenced the Defendant, even if the sentencing is not unfair, is too unreasonable.

2. A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal above, the prosecutor applied for permission to modify the name of the crime and the provisions of the applicable law in the trial before the judgment on the grounds of appeal. The prosecutor applied for permission to change the name of the crime and the provisions of the applicable law through legitimate procedures, and the judgment of the court below became not to be maintained.

B. However, since the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court, the victim's statements in F and G, I, J and E, "the defendant was faced with the interest of the defendant, and the victim suffered the injury that the part of this part of this case is teared.

The part “” is consistent and consistent with each other, even though it is somewhat inconsistent with the geographical and detailed portions, such as the circumstances before and after the instant case, according to the time of statement as argued by the defense counsel, it is difficult to deny the credibility of each of the entire statements of F, G, I, J, and E. Meanwhile, the lower court stated that the witness K, L, and M at the instant site as the Defendant’s act did not have a strong intention to obstruct the victim who had committed the behavior of E, while the victim stated to the effect that they had no intention to commit the behavior of E or to speak.