The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The summary of the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal stated that “I am, I am. I am. I am. I am.” The damaged person was a heat of 1 cm in diameter in line with the above locking device, and F, a witness, had a locking device towards the injured person.

In light of the fact that the defendant stated, although the defendant could flick to the victim who had been in his/her vicinity when he/she had a metal locking device on the floor, he/she could have been flickly recognized that he/she had no choice but to have been able to do so, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the special injury of the defendant. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or

Judgment

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

In the trial of the party, the Prosecutor added the following facts charged with the injury resulting from the negligence while maintaining the special injury in the facts charged by the Defendant as the conjunctive charges, and applied the name of the crime by adding "the name of the conjunctive crime: the injury resulting from negligence" and "Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 266 (1) of the Criminal Act." This Court was added to the subject of the judgment by granting permission.

In addition, as seen below, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the injury caused by negligence, which is the ancillary charge, and the crime of destroying property and causing bodily injury caused by negligence, which the lower court found guilty, should be sentenced to a single sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the argument of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to special injury, which is the primary charge of the prosecutor, is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined below.

B. 1) The Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is around 10:40 on March 17, 2016.