The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. According to all the evidence, including the statement of the victim with credibility of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case due to mistake of facts, although it could be recognized that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the Bill of Indictment: (a) on June 14, 2015, the 5th sentence of the facts charged at the trial of the Party; and (b) on June 12, 2015, the Defendant applied for amendments to the Bill of Amendment to the Bill of Amendment to the Bill of Indictment, stating that “The 5th sentence of the facts charged was changed to “the 1st trial of June 14, 2015.” (c) The subject of the said judgment changed

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the existence of such reasons for reversal of authority.

However, since the facts charged were modified as stated below in the revised facts charged for the first time in the trial, the legitimacy of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake in the facts charged should be determined based on the revised facts charged.

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

A. The modified Defendant is residing in the victim C(76 tax)’s children from about five years before the date of the charge, and in the Da of the former North Korea, with the victim from about five years before the date of the charge.

No person shall commit any violence against a person aged 65 years or older, or injure such person.

Nevertheless, on June 12, 2015, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim due to the number of days of treatment, such as the victim's spawn, leading the victim's spawn to the ward by hand, leading the victim's spawn that the victim suffered from the victim's body in the process of leading the victim's spawn and property issues.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated as follows.