The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not have any mistake of facts with the head of the victim’s flaps.

B. Although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was the victim’s fluorial belt, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since the Defendant’s act is aimed at fighting between the victim and the female employees of the Defendant company.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged was around 09:05 on July 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was a victim F (the age of 36) who was unable to conduct a usual appraisal in front of the first floor “Egypt” or the carper in Tae-si located in Tae-si; (b) was snicking the victim’s bomb by hand; (c) was snicking the bomb; and (d) was towed by the boom belt, and the victim was able to receive approximately two weeks of medical treatment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. 1) In a criminal trial as to whether a criminal facts committed in a victim’s breath by destroying a victim’s flapsing, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge not having any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree of conviction as above, the prosecutor’s interest should be determined even if he/she is suspected of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3722, Sept. 26, 2013). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, inasmuch as it is difficult to believe that the F’s statement was flapsing from the Defendant, and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was flabing, and as long as it is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant was flabing, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is reasonable.