The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant, by mistake of facts, did not inflict an injury upon the victim D when the victim D, or walked glass with the entrance and exit door, was guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence (2.00,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the instant facts charged is a police officer belonging to the Busan Southern Police Station.

1) On March 31, 2016, around 01:55, the injured Defendant: (a) entered the above entertainment shop at the 5th floor of the Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Transportation Daegu Building, and requested the victim D (25 tax) who is an employee of the said entertainment shop to provide alcohol and entertainment shop services on the ground that the alcohol level does not coincide with the drinking value; (b) was refused to use the said entertainment shop; (c) when the injured Defendant was able to use the said entertainment shop on the ground that he was able to ask the victim D (25 tax) to provide alcohol and entertainment shop services; (d) twice the victim’s side glass by drinking; and (e) once the arms were frighted; and (e) the victim’s buckbuck site at the victim’s 10-day bar, which requires medical treatment.

2) The Defendant damaged the studio doors owned by the victim E by destroying, such as walking the glass windows installed at the middle of the studio entrance no more than 1,000 won, on the ground that D does not provide D alcoholic beverage, such as the date, time, place, and the above paragraph 1, the Defendant damaged the studio doors owned by the victim E, such as the replacement of glass windows.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant does not have any injury to the victim D or any damage to property as stated in the facts charged.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, CCTV images taken at the time of the instant case.