The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) is that the defendant alleged to be mistaken for the facts of appeal did not have a fact that he/she had the victim's scam at one time in the office of the Reconstruction Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "office of this case") stated in the facts charged, and there is no fact that he/she had the victim's head outside of the office of this case and has s

The Defendant, outside of the office of this case, failed to put the two arms in order to put the victim's head, after having her boomed with the victim's head.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to regard the sentencing.

On October 27, 2016, at around 20:00, the summary of the facts charged as to the assertion of mistake is that the Defendant had a good appraisal in relation to the “C apartment reconstruction promotion committee” at the Seocho-gu Seoul apartment building and the office of the committee of the committee of promotion of the first floor of 206 Dong-dong 1 (the office of this case), and had a good appraisal on the “C apartment reconstruction promotion committee” on the floor of the victim D (the age 61) once on the floor of the hand, the Defendant left the office and got the victim her head, and got the victim her knee in a kneeing manner that requires approximately 2 weeks medical treatment.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case by granting credibility on the grounds that the main parts of the victim and witness E legal statement are consistent and consistent, and that it conforms to the prevailing circumstances.

The defense of the defendant's defense for the decision of the party deliberation is consistent with the grounds for appeal from the police to the trial of the party.

However, in relation to the place beyond the Defendant, the Defendant did not have a tree board on the place where he was able to buy the price from the damaged and was tightly used.