The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: In relation to the crime of injury (crime No. 1 of the facts stated in the judgment below), although there was a fact that the victim was pushed the victim outside of a restaurant, he did not commit an act of leading the victim out of a restaurant, leading him out of the restaurant, cutting him, cutting him out his bage, or cutting out or cutting him out, etc., and there is no intention or person related to the victim's act, and even if it falls under the elements of the composition, the defendant's act is dismissed as a defensive act.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (the completion of a sexual assault treatment program for 6 months and 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on February 9, 2017, the Defendant listened to the desire from the injured party during the dispute with the victim E (58 years of age) in the “D cafeteria” located in Gyeongnam-gun, Changnam-gun on February 22:0, 2017; (b) on the part of the injured party, he saw the victim’s breath, led him into the restaurant; (c) on the part of the victim’s chest; (d) on the part of the victim’s chest, the victim’s chest part was shicked into the floor; (d) the victim’s chest part was boomed into the upper part of the victim’s right side; and (e) the victim’s right head part and the part of the victim’s 28 days back to the victim’s right side and the victim suffered injury, such as bucking the victim’s 10-day treatment.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed an injury by comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s partial legal statement, each police statement on the victim and J (the above restaurant customer), the 112 reported case handling table, and internal investigation report.

(c)

1) In light of the fact that the defendant stated in the police, the prosecutor's office, and the court of the court below that the defendant's act "at the time outside of the restaurant was damaged by the victim," and that the victim also stated to the effect that the police was sealed by the defendant, the part recognized as the defendant's act and whether it was related to the person who injured the defendant's act