The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. In a situation where the Defendant and the victim live together with one another in the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, there is no credibility of the Defendant’s statement that the victim reported on the 112 of the cell phone by doing harm to the other hand without the breath, and manipulating the cell phone.

Although the defendant asserts that he was unilaterally against the victim, he also expressed his intention not to punish the victim.

Considering this point, even if the consistency in part of the victim's statement is somewhat insufficient, insofar as the core content of the victim's statement that the defendant received the victim's face by her head is consistent and the content of the victim's diagnosis also conforms to the victim's statement, the fact that the defendant injured the victim is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of injury is erroneous.

2. The prosecutor, ex officio, maintains the facts charged of the injury which the court below acquitted among the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, and subsequently requests the name of the crime, the applicable provisions of Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and the amendment of the indictment adding the same contents as those stated in Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act as stated in Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and the subject of the

However, as seen below, the lower judgment was no longer maintained as long as this court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charges.

However, since the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts concerning the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts concerning the primary facts and the ancillary facts added by this court shall be judged

3. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the prosecutor’s assertion of misconception of facts as to the primary charged facts, is the following circumstances.