1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

3.Provided, That for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the testimony of witnesses of the court below in erroneous determination of facts, and the defendants' statements and photographs at the investigative agency, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant injured the victim by smugglinging the part of the victim's hand.

Nevertheless, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On October 9, 2013, around 20:05, the Defendant: (a) at the entrance of “F” restaurant of the E-market shopping mall C (n, 52 years old); (b) on the ground that the Defendant had expressed another person a desire to commit a crime against the victim, the Defendant, at the hand of the victim who received a claim from the victim, pushed down the victim’s part of the victim’s booms over the floor; and (c) caused the victim to go beyond the floor; and (d) caused the victim to undergo approximately a week medical treatment.

B. The lower court consistently stated that the witness H’s statements are made in this court and investigative agency with evidence consistent with the above facts charged, but the victim’s injury part is near head clean, and the victim was faced with head by the defendant, and the victim was injured by the head on the restaurant floor, and the head was not faced with other things, such as the table, and it was practically impossible to inflict bodily injury on the head gate if the victim was faced with outside the restaurant floor. In light of the fact that each of the above statements was difficult to believe and there was no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the defendant pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act by determining that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

C. The following circumstances, i.e., the victim, based on the evidence duly examined and adopted at the court below's decision, are revealed.