The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, since the Defendant did not use the victim’s remaining scarcity on the left side of the treatment days.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) around 17:00 on August 19, 2011; (b) around 17:0 on the Naju City, CF car; and (c) on the victim D(73) and E, and F.

At the time, the three persons, such as the above D, installed one ton cargo vehicle on the farm road with pesticide products in E, and contained 1,000 liters in the cargo vehicle on the water tank.

On the ground that the victim, etc. did not keep the way against the victim, etc., the victim, etc. became a vision for one another on the ground that he/she did not understand that he/she could not understand.

At the time, the victim was in a state of being frightened by dancing next to the rail of the above cargo loaded, but the defendant was in a narrow way between the cargo vehicle and the waterway to the victim, and the victim was frighted to the left side on the left side of the treatment day by taking the fright of the cargo rail by taking the fright of the cargo along the fright of the victim (hereinafter referred to as the "the case"), and the victim was frighted to the left side of the treatment day by taking the fright of the cargo rail.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence in its judgment.

C. The judgment of this court 1) In the crime of injury means that the injury inflicted upon the victim’s body completeness or physiological function, and it does not constitute an injury in the event of natural cure upon the lapse of time without any special treatment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 200). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and this court, the following circumstances are met.