The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misconception of facts, Defendant 1 did not fluorize the victim’s left elbelbow with the victim’s chest part, but met with the victim’s chest part. This is merely a simple physical contact that does not reach the “exercise of a direct tangible force on the person’s body,” which is the concept of assault under the Criminal Act, but the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The sentence (a fine of KRW 300,000) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Although it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of and accepted at least the possibility of undergoing the victim’s outbreak while working in a so-called strike, it is reasonable to deem that there was dolusent intent, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts in the judgment of the court below on the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the court below stated the defendant's assertion and its judgment on it under the title "the judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion". The court below's judgment which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant committed an assault against the victim's left part part of the defendant's shoulder with a shoulder is just and it cannot be said that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the evidence of this case as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles in detail in light of the records, the court below's decision on the ground as stated in its reasoning.