The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part of the assault.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the part of the injury, even though the Defendant was found to have inflicted an injury on the victim.

2. On October 25, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:40 on October 25, 2013, the Defendant declared a closed meeting on the grounds that the victim E (the age of 54) who was the temporary chairperson of the Resident Support Council was unable to reach a meeting due to the lack of opinions among the members; (b) continued a defective meeting on the ground that it is difficult for the Defendant to proceed with the meeting; and (c) went through a defective meeting on the part of the victim’s head on a drinking occasion, the Defendant saw the victim to undergo approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

3. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel denied the fact of assault, but there is no reason to reject the above statement, E stated that the witness E and F’s statement was consistent and unlike the consistent and otherwise, E made a statement to the police officer dispatched to the scene at the time of the instant case, and witness G and H stated that the Defendant did not commit an assault against the victim at the time of the instant case, but the witness G and H made a statement that there was a sudden assault in a disturbing state, such as the Defendant’s sensation of the body by many people at the time of the instant case, but it is deemed that there was an assault at the time of the instant case. Accordingly, all people at the same time did not have been present at the scene of the assault, and I, J, and K stated that there was a physical contact between the members at the time of the investigative agency, and the Defendant stated that there was a fact of resistance at the investigative agency to the fact that the witness stated that it was not memory or memory of such fact, and that the witness and M were not in compliance with all circumstances within the conference room, etc. as stated in the Defendant’s crime.