The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant is not able to have a dancer on the victim’s face.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to the indictment in the first instance court, and the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained as the case was permitted by the court and the case was changed.

However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged

A. On March 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on March 29, 2015, around 02:59, in a toilet corridor in Ansan-si, a member C of Ansan-si; and (b) on the second underground floor, the Defendant: (c) had, without any justifiable reason, the victim E (the 26-year-old) and the above corridor crosses one another; (d) the victim E (the 26-year-old) face of the victim, which is a dangerous thing in the hands, and (e) had approximately two weeks of the victim’s right face.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence adopted, found the facts as indicated in its reasoning, based on the following: (a) the victim’s statement, witness F’s statement, the police G’s statement dispatched to the scene of the crime at the time of the crime, and the passage width could have been narrow and could have conflict with the victim; and (b) the Defendant could have intentionally inflicted bodily injury on the victim.

Based on the judgment of the court, the primary charges were convicted.

(c)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original judgment and the trial court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there was an intentional injury to the defendant at the time of committing the instant crime.