The part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part rejecting the said application for compensation was immediately determined.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the victim’s head was faced with the beer disease cited by the defendant. However, the defendant did not get the head of the victim’s head as the beer disease, and there was no intention of injury, and the defendant did not take the back of the victim into account the back of the disease.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and No. 2: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

3. In the judgment of the court below ex officio, the appeal case of the court below was consolidated, and each of the offenses of the court below constitutes concurrent offenses 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. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, even in this case, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it is judged below.

4. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted in the trial of the lower court as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, ① the victim, at the time of the instant case, made a concrete and consistent statement about the background of the dispute with the Defendant, the damage caused thereby recognizing the credibility of the statement, ② the details of the instant report, the victim’s photograph and diagnosis, and on-site photograph, etc., correspond to the victim’s statement