The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant was locked in a taxi driven by C under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case, and did not assault C, the lower court, which was found guilty of all the facts charged in the instant case, even though he was able to obtain statements from C without credibility and presented the opinions of innocence through the participatory trial procedure. The lower court erred by misapprehending facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Even if the Defendant assaulted C, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not commit an act of assaulting C, which is a “in operation,” and thus cannot be punished as a “driver assault.” Since the injury inflicted upon C may naturally be cured following the passage of time, it does not constitute “injury” as referred to in Article 5-10(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. A. On December 27, 2012, the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (accidents, Violence, etc.) boarded D-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”) driven by C(46 years of age) from the string distance from the string line in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol on December 27, 2012, and inflicted a bodily injury on C, such as c’s face at one time with his/her driver’s seat at one time with his/her driver’s seat and several times of drinking exceeding the 14-day driver’s seat.

B. The Defendant causing property damage in the instant taxi prevents C from properly operating the driving vehicle and the brake system by going beyond the driver’s seat driven by C as seen above in the instant taxi. Accordingly, the Defendant got a part of the Fio car owned by the victim E (hereinafter “instant car”).