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. In the absence of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, committed a huplice, but did not assault the victim due to huplice, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s use of a dangerous object, as stated in the lower judgment, and the fact of assaulting the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

① After committing the instant crime, the victim made a concrete and consistent statement at the investigative agency on the fact that he/she has the right shouldered by the Defendant.

② E, who observed the instant case, made a statement to the investigative agency that he saw that the Defendant was booming the victim’s shoulder, and the contents of the case are consistent with the victim’s statement.

(3) The image of a photograph taken by the victim’s parts of the injury conforms to the statement of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Considering the risk of the instant crime in light of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the punishment of the lower court is somewhat unreasonable, taking into account all the conditions of sentencing, including the following: (a) the Defendant and the victim do not want the punishment of the Defendant; (b) the Defendant did not have the same criminal record; and (c) the Defendant, who was in dispute with the victim, appears to have reached an contingent crime; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.