All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. On July 31, 2015, the summary of the grounds for appeal did not state that the Defendant made the victim the speech “the year, the psychiatrist,” which reads “the year, the psychiatrist,” and did not assault the victim on November 4, 2015. Accordingly, the lower judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the above part was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio reversal following the combination of appeals, the defendant filed each appeal against the judgment below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each of the above appeals cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting the Defendant is in a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower judgment is no longer maintained in this respect.

(b) In the case of an ex officio reversal of the Amendments, the Prosecutor assaulted the Defendant’s name “Assault” as “injury”; Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act applicable mutatis mutandis as “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act”; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act as “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act”; Article 15(1) of the facts charged as “1. In the case of injury”; and Article 260(1)

“Priceed the victim,” the head of the part requiring treatment for about 14 days was straw, etc.

The judgment of the second court is no longer maintained due to changes in the subject matter of the adjudication by the court which has filed an application for changes in the contents of the amendment.

(c)

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on July 31, 2015, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) The injured party shall be in the court of first instance from the time of investigation.