The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant, at the time and time stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, did not inflict an injury by fighting the victim D with his body or collected a cell phone of the victim and damaged

The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (fine 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by official authority, the name of the crime in the indictment of this case was examined by the prosecutor from “injury” to “injury,” and the contents of the indictment of this case as stated in paragraph (1) as stated in the facts charged below, and the court applied for changes in the indictment as stated in the modified facts charged, and the judgment of the court below became subject to the judgment by permitting the changes

[Revised Facts of Facts charged] The defendant's "the victim" is discarded as the victim's cafeterias in the "E" restaurant operated by the defendant on March 21, 2012, 02:00 on the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, for the reason that the defendant's cafeterias in the defendant's place of residence interfered with the victim's children's books and waters.

"In doing so, the victim assaulted the victim by spreading water on the face of the victim, putting the back head of the victim into the floor, putting him/her over the floor, taking about 2-3 minutes of the chest, putting him/her in the kitchen, threatening him/her in the main room, and threatening the victim," on the ground that the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the subject of the modified judgment as above, and this is examined.

The victim A of misunderstanding of facts is consistent from the first time to the trial court.