The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, was in his hands next to the victim C.

There is no fact that the victim is faced with the wall by pushing the F and pushing the F.

Rather, the victim was able to see the defendant's head debt with his hand, and the face side was tightly taken by his hand.

2) The statements of the victim and witness E are not reliable because they are not consistent with objective circumstances. In particular, among the statements of the victim at the court below, those statements made by the victim F were inadmissible as they did not satisfy the requirements for special circumstances under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

3) Even if the Defendant was pushed ahead of F,

Even if the defendant did not have intention to inflict an injury on the victim, there is no intention to do so, and there is no substantial relation between the defendant's act and the victim's injury.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The gist of the instant facts charged was that the Defendant came to know of the victim C (n, 67 years of age) with the introduction of the Defendant five years ago, and at the request of the owner of the house around June 2015, the Defendant did not have good appraisal on the ground that the victim, instead of the owner, entered into a monthly rent contract for himself/herself, and did not have good appraisal on the ground that he/she did not have any written contract.

around 15:00 on November 19, 2015, the Defendant heard from E’s house with the knowledge that the Defendant was not a good answer from the preceding land manager, and she was a victim’s son who was suffering from the victim’s seat and she was next to the victim’s seat.

By pushing F, the victim was faced with the wall by pushing F, and the victim was faced with the wall.

Accordingly, the defendant is required to provide four weeks of treatment to the victim.