The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and the lower court convicted the victimized person of this part of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the injured person expressed his/her intention not to punish him/her prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine and the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the public prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act on each of the instant facts charged because the victimized person expressed an intention not to punish him/her prior to the pronouncement of the judgment. However, the lower court convicted him/her or acquitted him/her of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of fact-finding, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, on February 12, 2017, even though the Defendant could have recognized the fact of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of the legal principles of the defendant and prosecutor

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the home of the Victim E (V, 23 years of age) located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 2015, 2015, considered the victim as the Hague.

For the reason that he stated that he was not guilty of the victim's body several times from that date until February 12, 2017, including that from that date, he was found guilty of the assault crime within the scope of the same facts charged while the judgment Nos. 1 through 5 (No. 2, which was prosecuted as a special assault crime, was pending at the beginning of the court below) was judged not guilty of the assault crime within the same facts charged. The prosecutor appealed only for the crime of assault and dispute, and the non-guilty part of the reason that the prosecutor did not appeal is exempted from the object of the attack and defense between the parties, while it is judged not to be tried in the trial, and leaves from the object of the actual trial.