The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of reasons for appeal by the public prosecutor;

A. Although the Defendant inflicted an injury on the Victim F as stated in the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant abused the Victim F or sustained an injury by the F, and there is an error of law by mistake in fact.

2) Although the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim D, as stated in the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the victim D on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the result of the injury was caused, which was erroneous due to mistake of the fact.

B. The lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 2,00,000) that was unreasonably asserted in sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment regarding violation of the Act on the Protection, Use, etc. of Location Information as stated below, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission. As such, the conviction portion among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

B. However, there are such reasons for reversal ex officio.

Even in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake about the acquittal is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court on the part of the victim F’s injury was that D did not see that the Defendant was at the time when the Defendant was F in the court.

The statement, in the court, D was first made by the defendant and was made to F.

F. F. F. F. F. A. H.D. for its first time

The statement and the statement are in conflict, and F, unlike the legal statement, the investigation agency, the defendant first d and d, when he was at the time.

The statement is not consistent, and the site at the time of the case.