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. In other words, the Defendant did not have any misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine with H and I when she was in common with H and I. However, even though she was in common, this constitutes a legitimate defense to restrain A’s assault.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On December 16, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 19:30, the victim A (hereinafter “A”) was called “G” restaurant located in Ischeon-si F to return home; and (b) H went beyond the floor to leep A’s breath and breath of the Defendant’s breath, and fladdd the head’s body by combining it with A’s head part; and (c) flad the Defendant’s breath and flath of the Defendant’s breath.

As a result, the defendant, in collaboration with H and I, suffered injury to A, such as a multi-lateral coordinate, bid, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. In full view of the evidence in its holding, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on A jointly with H and I, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that such act does not constitute legitimate defense.

(c)

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the records and arguments of the above deliberation, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proven without reasonable doubt.

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

Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are with merit.

1) H and I consistently made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was indicted as the Defendant and his accomplice or requested for a summary order from an investigative agency to the lower court’s court, and that the Defendant did not have been on the job at the time of entering the lower court’s trial.

In addition, Kndo, which has observed the situation at the time, has "H and I, as you get sound outside a restaurant, is crypted A.