The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is true that there was a dispute between the defendant and the victim E, but there is no fact that the defendant, by taking the head debt of the victim, has led the victim 2 and 3 times, and has inflicted a bodily injury on the victim;

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio determination.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the defendant is found to have been sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of four months of imprisonment with prison labor on March 26, 2015 in the Suwon District Court Sejong District Court on the ground of a security offense, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 28, 2015.

Therefore, in the above boundary crime and the crime of violation of the judgment of the court below against the defendant which became final and conclusive, in relation to the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, punishment for the crime of violation of the judgment of the court below shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39 (1) of the Criminal

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the statement in the court of original instance and the written diagnosis of injury in the witness E’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and led the victim twice to 3 times and three times, and damaged the victim’s personality that requires treatment of about 14 days. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is a ground for ex officio reversal as seen above.