The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding: The Defendant merely got the floor of the small-scale illness, but did not lead the victim.

The injured party's upper part of the victim's body was caused by the so-called so-called so-called so-called so-called the body of the injured party or the so-called so-called so-called the body of the injured party.

B. Improper sentencing: The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should take into account the characteristics of the structure of the first instance judgment in determining the legitimacy of the appellate court’s first instance judgment, as it has the nature of ex post facto review based on the inner judgment, but has a character of ex post facto review that has considerable elements of ex post facto review.

Therefore, when an appellate court intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision after re-evaluation of the first deliberation, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, and to reverse the first deliberation decision after the ex post facto deliberation, there is a reasonable reason to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, and without any such exceptional circumstance, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first deliberation should not be reversed without permission.

In accordance with the principle of court-oriented trials that the conviction or innocence of a criminal case shall be formed by a court-oriented trial, and in principle, only the evidence directly examined in the presence of a judge shall be the basis of a trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). 2) The Defendant asserted the same in the lower court, and the lower court did not accept the assertion on detailed grounds.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, it is just and acceptable (the victim was between the defendant and the restriction).