The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) The victim’s head was not fluent (defluence of fact) by hand (defluence of fact). 2) The victim’s head was moved by side to the construction section, and did not carry dangerous articles on the ground that he did not go through or threaten (misunderstanding of legal principles). (b) The punishment (amount to KRW 700,000) sentenced by the lower court which was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, it is recognized that the defendant was guilty of the charge of this case by carrying dangerous articles and carrying the victim's dangerous articles, even if the defendant was able to commit the crime, as long as the defendant was able to use the gate, which is a dangerous object, in fact, as stated in the facts charged, with the left hand of the victim, and caused the victim to have taken the part of the gate, one time, and as such, the victim was able to do so. (See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2018, Jun. 11, 2004, etc.). Therefore, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the charge of this case, and there is an error of misapprehension of facts or of misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant deposited an additional amount of KRW 300,00 for the victim in the first instance trial; (b) the degree of assault against the victim is very minor; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and circumstance of the crime; (b) means and method of the crime; and (c) circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

We do not accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. The defendant's argument that the sentencing of the defendant is unfair is reasonable, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is reasonable.