The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The injured party's wife who argued misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is merely a minor figure that can be naturally cured after a certain period of time and cannot be viewed as an injury under the Criminal Act. Meanwhile, since the injured party did not want punishment against the accused, the judgment dismissing the prosecution of this case should be sentenced pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the judgment of conviction against the accused is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one million won a penalty) is too unreasonable, which is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is acknowledged that the defendant, in the course of a dispute between the victim and the victim, frighted the victim's face and body by cutting the victim's timber over the floor and assaulting the victim's face and body several times, causing the victim's left hand, etc., and causing a shock in the face of the victim's face. Annoyingly, the degree of the injury, such as the part of the victim's blood transfusion, etc., is extremely low need to be treated as an upper part, and thus, it thereby infringes on the health condition.

Even if it is difficult to see or if it is not particularly difficult to provide medical treatment, it cannot be deemed as much as possible to recover nature after the lapse of time.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and this part of

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, although the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant suffered damages, such as the occurrence of blood transfusion by suffering from the Defendant’s head and wife by suffering from the Defendant’s head and wife due to the price perculic, etc. from the victimized person, and as such, the Defendant was the Defendant.