The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant on the part of the victim, although it is possible to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim.

2. Before deciding on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's ex officio, the prosecutor changed the facts charged to the primary facts charged at the time of the trial, and the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the meaning of "Assault", the application of Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the addition of the ancillary facts charged as seen below, prior to deciding on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, and the court applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of adding them as stated below. As such, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

Despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the revised primary facts charged.

3. Judgment as to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged

A. On October 30, 2016, around 01:40 on October 30, 2016, the Defendant injured the victim E in front of the D printing office located in Syang-si C, by putting the victim’s head debt in front of the D printing office, resulting in an injury to the victim, which requires treatment for about 28 days between 28 days and her head debt.

B. The lower court’s judgment and the lower court’s judgment acknowledged the fact that the victimized person gets heads of the Defendant after the victim went beyond the victim, and rather, committed assault that the victimized person gets at the time of the Defendant’s head scam and scam, etc., it cannot be ruled out that the victimized person suffered injury as stated in the facts charged during the process of raising and disputing head scams with the Defendant, and F’s legal statement in the lower court is the Defendant.