We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The defendant does not pay a fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles 1) 1 of the judgment of the court below (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant attached the victim’s clothes retail, but there is no fact that the Defendant was towing the left part of the arms.

The Defendant only puts clothes retail of the victim to the effect that the Defendant did not have the intention of assault.

2) The judgment of the second instance (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles) deeming that the Defendant would turn on the victim, and that the Defendant had dried up the bicycle in the future, and the victim did not put the bicycle in the future. As such, there was no intention of assault, and the injury of the victim did not result from the above accident.

3) The lower court’s judgment (misunderstanding of the facts) did not err by misapprehending the victim’s chest.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the first judgment: the fine of KRW 300,00,000, the second and third judgment: each fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

The judgment of the court below against the defendant was rendered, and the defendant filed an appeal against this case, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. Since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment shall be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant: (a) led the victim’s left arms to be recognized as a labor, leading the victim to wear the Defendant’s fluoral body; and (b) sustained the Defendant’s fluorial fluor, fluor, etc.