1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 1,200,000 won to the plaintiff and its related expenses on August 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) On August 25, 2017, around 15:43, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff, i.e., “heats with no two infinites, and the two infinites with the Plaintiff, which were placed in the table table in the D’s restaurant located in Yasan City, on one occasion, while drinking alcoholic beverages together with the Plaintiff, and caused the Plaintiff to undergo approximately two weeks medical treatment (hereinafter “instant harmful act”).

(2) The Defendant was indicted for committing a special injury under the former District Court Decision 2018Kadan75 (No. 2018) due to the instant harmful act, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor on August 8, 2018 by the said court.

As to this, the Defendant appealed with the Jeonju District Court 2018No173, and the appellate court reversed the first instance judgment on November 9, 2018, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of six months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, a significant fact in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the loss incurred by the harmful act of this case.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. Even if the harmful act of offsetting liability and the factors on the part of the victim both occur or expanded and the damage is irrelevant to the causes on the part of the victim, such as the risk of physical personality or disease, if compensating the perpetrator for the whole damage in light of the form and degree of the disease in question is contrary to the principle of fairness, the court may apply the comparative doctrine to determine the amount of compensation by analogy, and take into account the factors on the part of the victim who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713, Jun. 24, 2005). The evidence as mentioned above are written in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 and the whole pleadings.