The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault the victim C, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, consistently stated the following circumstances: (i) the victim from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, i.e., (i) the victim has consistently made a statement to the effect that “after the trial on the day of the instant case, the Defendant was frightened one time in his hand to block him; (ii) the victim appears to have made a report call on 112 immediately after the instant case occurred; and (iii) the victim’s husband, who was the husband, also had a dispute with the Defendant on the way from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, left the parking lot where the Defendant was parked on the day of the instant case; but (ii) the victim was frightened by the victim’s “as the victim was frightening another person,” and thereafter, the victim was frightd with the Defendant’s side and argued one time as indicated in the facts charged.”

Based on the judgment, the defendant was convicted.

A thorough examination of the records of this case in light of the evidence, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case based on the above determination of evidence is justified.

Although the witness N was given testimony consistent with the defendant's argument, the crime of this case is between 1 and 3 women as a dispute over the inheritance of property.