The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be determined by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, and in particular, according to the victim D’s statement, the court below found the facts charged of this case to be erroneous and found the defendant not guilty.

2. The Defendant, at around 22:30 on March 17, 2013, brought a dispute with the victim D (the age of 58) who is a member of the C, and called “C, etc. 58 years of age,” and went home to the si, the Defendant, who was the victim, said that the Defendant, “I am well known that I am well, I am well,” and “I am we am we am we am we am we can am we am we am we am.”

On March 17, 2013, at around 23:30 on March 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) brought the victim with a nearby 306-dong An apartment building of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and then, (b) inflicted injury on the victim, such as “the victim’s spath, spath, spathing, spathing, spathing, spathing the victim’s spath; (c) the victim’s spath, spathing the victim’s spath by hand, and spathing the victim’s face; and (d) the victim suffered approximately three weeks of the victim’s face by drinking.”

3. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to believe the victim D’s statement, which is the main evidence corresponding to the facts charged of the instant case, and based on other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove it, and thus, it constitutes

4. However, the above judgment of the court below is hard to accept.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, i.e., the victim made a statement to the effect that it is consistent with the facts charged in the instant case from the investigative agency to this court, and the said statement is mutually consistent.