The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant was not guilty of having inflicted an injury upon the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case was as follows: B around 00:48 on September 21, 2016, on the ground that the Defendant was unable to smoke in the third female toilet of the commercial building in Ma, and the Defendant was able to take the face of the Defendant on one occasion due to drinking, and when the Defendant continued to take the face of the Defendant out of the toilet due to drinking, he was able to take up the Defendant’s head’s face by hand, and he was able to take up the Defendant’s head’s face by hand from F. The Defendant and F were able to take the face of the Defendant’s head from F. The Defendant and F were able to take the son’s hand while having a conflict with B for the foregoing reason, and the Defendant was able to take the son’s head and son’s hand by participating in it.

As a result, the defendant and F jointly inflicted injury on B, such as a scarke scarke, which requires treatment for about 21 days.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

(c)

The core evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case’s judgment is the testimony of B, but in light of the following circumstances, which can be known by records and changes, the statement of B is difficult to believe it as it is, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without any reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is with merit.

A) The Defendant and F consistently came from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the Defendant and F met the costs of the Defendant’s smoking as a matter of the Defendant’s smoking first, and thereafter, the Defendant and F met the Defendant.