The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the statement made by the victim and witness C corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case; (b) the victim’s statement is relatively consistent and specific; (c) the victim’s statement conforms to C’s statement or 112 Report Handling Manual; and (d) the victim was placed in the emergency room on the day of the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury upon the victim

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor: (a) as the name of the crime of this case was “injury” from “injury” to “Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) as the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act “Article 262 and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act”; and (c) as the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) around 18:00 on June 14, 2018, stated that “the Defendant was the victim’s money in the street near the set-off space in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, for the reason that he would not change the value to the victim’s money; and (b) the victim’s bicycle was frightened to the victim; (c) the victim’s bicycle was pushed back to the victim; (d) the victim’s fright to the victim’s frightth; and (d) the victim’s application for amendment was made to the victim’s body by placing the victim’s fright to the victim’s body; and (d) the victim’s application for amendment was 4 days.”

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

The court below determined that it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant abused the victim only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor.