The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the statement of the victim, the victim was at the construction site after the completion of the trial expenses with the defendant, and the victim was at the time of the request to another person for the work to do so, and the loss was at the time of the request to the other person, and the victim was at the time, and the victim was

In light of the fact that the defendant and the victim were to receive industrial accident treatment and demanded the industrial accident treatment to the on-site warden and the defendant, immediately after the case, was due to the settlement between the defendant and the victim, and the defendant also attempted to reach an agreement with the victim at KRW 30 to 500,00 through their own birth, the victim's statement has credibility and the defendant's assertion is difficult to believe

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. Since the defendant himself recognizes the fact that he gets the victim to live in a dub, the crime of assault should be recognized at least.

2. Determination

A. A. The prosecutor’s ex officio determination following the amendment of the indictment maintained the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and applied Articles 260(1) and 260(1) of the Criminal Act applied with the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of adding the facts charged as preliminary as stated in the following “criminal facts” was changed by this court’s permission.

As seen later, this Court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charges, so the judgment of the court below that only the primary charges are subject to the judgment can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts charged still are subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified indictment.

B. Judgment of the misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the primary facts charged (1).