All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: Although the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim E, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1), although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant committed physical abuse against the victim D, he/she was not guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a sum of KRW 300,000) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the record as to the Defendant’s assertion, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim E by pushing the victim E.

1) The victim E made a statement from investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that the Defendant was pushed down with himself, and that the Defendant’s defect that he attempted to take place was divided into her hand and her chest by hand and her arms.

2) On March 22, 2017, the date following the occurrence of the instant case, the victim E was diagnosed under the name of the “salvines, tensions, and both sides of the hands” in the J-type Foreign Department on March 22, 2017, and the name of the said diagnosis is not inconsistent with the allegations by the said victim that the Defendant was sealed.

3) The wood d was investigated by each police on March 25, 2017, and F on April 22, 2017, and all statements were made to the same effect as victims E, notwithstanding the different timing of the investigation.

4) The Defendant, at the time, appears to have been somewhat interested because D, his father, who was a child, did not engage in a fluorous speech and behavior, and seems to have been a good condition between victims E.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the facts against the victim D among the facts charged in the instant case, thereby damaging the victim’s body by the Defendant’s act.