The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though it was not sufficient to acknowledge it.

2. Determination

A. At around 07:00 on September 2, 201, the Defendant expressed the victim D’s desire to “the age of aging and aging is not the age of drinking,” and the Defendant expressed the victim D’s desire to “the age of drinking and drinking,” when she had a talked to the end that “the fences are immediately cut to dry field” before the Defendant’s ancient field, the victim D (the age of 88), and the boundary issues, around around 07:0, around that day, around that day, the Defendant brought about the instant charges, following the victim D’s desire to “the victim’s satise that needs to be treated for about four weeks.”

B. The Defendant’s assertion of the instant temporary border was that the Defendant works in the ancient field, and was shaking the Victim D’s Ba to cut the posts.

Accordingly, the Defendant stated that the victim D referred to as “speing the posts”, and the victim D had carried the Defendant while leading the victim D, and the Defendant only inflicted damage on the victim D, and did not have a dance on the victim D.

C. The lower court determined as follows: (a) although the victim D’s statement, each injury diagnosis statement, and the fire fighter E dispatched at the time as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case were presented as evidence, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the Defendant and the victim D did not have any relationship due to the sudden problem owned by the victim D, and the Defendant and the victim D were in dispute on the day of the instant case, but it is difficult to see that the Defendant was at the time of the victim D on this ground; and (b) the victim D was at the age of 88 if the victim D made a hole from the Defendant on the bar and chest, and was at the age of 8.