The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant is merely aware of the fact that misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not bring the victim’s timber into the floor as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the victim suffered the same injury as the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below only with respect to breath of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor examined the part of the facts charged in the trial as follows: “Defendant A takes the victim’s neck into the floor by hand,” and applied for changes in the indictment to “the defendant A, by hand, carried the victim’s neck toward the wall.” Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles recognized all the facts charged as modified in the court below. Accordingly, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant's head was faced with the wall of the victim, and the victim's head was faced with about about 14 days of medical treatment as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the victim suffered injury, such as cerebral le, etc., of which detailed details requiring medical treatment are unknown, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted, since proximate causal relation can be acknowledged between the defendant's assault and the victim's injury.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.