The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is erroneous (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) that the defendant stated that he was unable to see the victim A as plastic will. Since F made the victim's appearance, it is difficult to believe the statement as it is. Although the victim's first statement did not state that he was a plastic will, the above statement merely contains the details about the circumstances surrounding the dispute between the defendant and the victim, and there was no statement about the part and circumstances of the injury. This is because the victim did not immediately go to an emergency room because the defendant argued in the box, and the victim did not conceal the defendant, the victim made a statement without hiding about the fact that he had inflicted an injury on the defendant. On the day of the first medical services on the day of this case, the victim stated that the victim was the head of the victim, and the diagnosis of the victim's injury on the day of this case was made on the basis of the radiation recording on the part of the victim's body on the day of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had inflicted the victim's loss to the victim's port.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding not guilty of the fact that the person was injured by plastic chairs among the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, and the Defendant did not reflect the mistake and did not have any damage, the sentence of the lower court imposing a fine of KRW 5,00,000 is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts stated that A used to assault A with plastic intent to commit an act of violence, but at the site of this case, A stated that the Defendant was an intentional person.