We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the first instance court (Habitual assault), the misunderstanding of the facts and the misunderstanding of the legal principles reveal the victim’s back head in order not to go beyond the process of assaulting from the injured party, but did not commit any act, such as when the victim’s back head is clicked or boomed, as stated in the facts charged.

The illegality of the defendant's act of taking back the back head of the victim constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3.5 million) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. As to the judgment of the second instance court (property damage) 1), the market price of the glass window by the Defendant misunderstanding the fact is not 20,000 won but 20,000 won.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

As to the lower judgment (violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act), 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on the case 2016 high-ranking 2324 case, the Defendant merely provided the instant post office passbook and e-mail card to an unspecified child on the part of the Defendant who received the loan, and did not transfer it.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 7 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below ex officio decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the defendant.

Each crime of the judgment of the court below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced simultaneously in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on habitual assault 1) is based on each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in its holding, i.e., the victim immediately after the occurrence of the instant case.