The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of legal principle) is as stated in the facts charged in this case, that the Defendant did not have any frighten the victim’s head and frighten the head as stated in the facts charged in this case. The Defendant merely prevented the victim’s head in the process of setting frightening the Defendant’s head, and the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, injury in the crime of bodily integrity or physiological function of the victim refers to the injury inflicted upon the victim’s physical integrity or physiological function. As such, as the degree of the situation can be easily expected in daily life, there is no need to provide separate treatment, and where it is difficult to deem that the situation harms the completeness of the body or changes the state of health due to the circumstance, the crime of injury is not established.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 200, 96Do2673 delivered on December 23, 1996, etc.). However, according to the records, the inspection of the part part of the trees suffered by the victim seems to have no difficulty in daily life even without undergoing treatment and to have been naturally cured due to the passage of time, and in fact, the victim did not receive treatment from a hospital, etc. and did not submit a medical certificate to an investigation agency after obtaining the medical certificate. Thus, it is difficult to see that the completeness of the part of the trees suffered by the victim has been damaged due to such minor circumstance, or that the health condition has been changed due to such minor circumstance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above part of the above part of the victim's body constitutes the injury of the crime of injury.