The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) The Defendant committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) (a crime committed by a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and did not have any fact leading to the victim’s face, and the above Macju’s cup cannot be deemed as constituting “hazardous goods”.

2) Since the victim of the bodily injury was flabed by the Defendant’s breath, the victim was flabed in the process of spreading the flab, and the Defendant did not have inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the lower judgment, and even if the part of the injury was recognized, the Defendant’s act constitutes a passive defensive act and legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the party, the ex officio judgment prosecutor applied "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" to "special assault" among the names of the crimes against the defendant, and applied Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to "Article 261 of the Criminal Act" respectively. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, and the remaining facts of the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, the following is examined.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the legal provision applicable to this part of the crime was modified, it is identical to the specific constituent requirements.

1) It is consistent from each police to each court of the original instance as to whether the defendant was scamed with the victim.