The relevant part of the judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not err by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, made the face of B, or in excess of the floor by putting a balbbbbbling, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged by taking the statement of B without credibility is erroneous in the misconception of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On September 15, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 10:25 on September 15, 2018, the summary of the facts charged was in sight with B in front of the office located in the wife D, namely, once the victim’s face was taken one time, flab with the victim, and flabed with flab with the victim, thereby inflicting injury on the victim, such as impairment of the face requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record as to the defendant's face at the time of the occurrence of the case in B, namely, ① the contents written in writing after the occurrence of the case in B (section 9 of the evidence record), the contents written in the police investigation after one month after the occurrence of the case in B (section 27 of the evidence record), and the contents written in the court of first instance (section 102 through 105 of the evidence record) after nine months after the occurrence of the case in B, a thorough examination of the contents written in the court of first instance (section 102 through 105 of the evidence record) is not consistent, and it is difficult to view that the defendant and the witness at the time of the case in question are specific and definite, and ②O which appears to have been a witness at the time of the case in question was stated to the effect that "the defendant and B were able to see that they were able to fright each other with each other and go beyond the bottom of the case in question (section 8 of the evidence record).