The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is less than the victim’s ear, but there is no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by breaking flaps.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below, ex officio, judged that the defendant was deemed to have led to a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case and notified that the defendant should be tried through a simplified trial procedure, and that the evidence as stated in the judgment below is admissible pursuant to Article 318-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act after the examination of evidence was completed in accordance with the method prescribed in Article 297-2

According to the records of the first trial of the court below, the defendant stated that "the facts charged are different from the facts" on the trial date, but the defendant merely seeks to answer questions of the presiding judge who asked whether the facts charged are admitted in the oral proceedings without defense counsel at the time of the court below's trial at the time of the trial of the court below, and denies the facts charged by alleging that the facts charged were stated to the purport that all the facts charged are recognized.

Therefore, the court below's decision that determined that it would be remarkably unfair to judge this case as a simple trial procedure and revoked the court below's decision that decided to judge it in accordance with a simple trial procedure pursuant to Article 286-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In this regard, the court below's decision cannot

Despite the existence of such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's argument of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

B. In full view of the facts charged in determining the mistake of facts, comprehensively taking account of the witness C’s statement in the court and the investigative agency, the Defendant’s police statement, part of CCTV images taken from the scene of the crime, and the description of the injury diagnosis statement, etc., the Defendant is