The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The defendant of the grounds of appeal brought an injury to the victim by carrying with himself a sicker who is a dangerous thing.

2. Determination

A. On October 15, 2012, around 16:00 on October 16, 2012, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with the victim E (the age of 60) at the “D” restaurant located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, a summary of the facts charged, distributed water and alcohol contained in the residues to the victim’s face and head on the ground that the victim took off an off sexual chills from the victim.

As a result, when a mutual appraisal has been satisfed by the victim, such as satisfing water into the face of the defendant, the defendant collected satisfy, which is a dangerous thing in the remaining satch, and satfyd the head of the victim once.

In this respect, the defendant carried dangerous objects and carried them for about two weeks to give treatment to the victim.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that: (a) the witness E’s investigative agency and the statement in court, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, were not sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged, in light of the statement that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the witness F was seated immediately next to the victim, and that the Defendant was able to have been aware of the fact that the victim was the victim, and that the statement that the victim was self-harmed by the victim, and that the statement in each image or diagnosis of the damaged photograph was insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged; and (b) there was no other evidence to acknowledge

C. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the court below's decision that there is no credibility of E's testimony is significantly unfair.

In full view of the remaining evidence in E’s testimony of the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant sustained an injury to the victim by carrying a dangerous element, such as the facts charged in the instant case.