The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, although the defendant did not have inflicted an injury upon the victim's clothes and face one time by drinking as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On May 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 22:25 on May 22, 2013, the summary of the facts charged charged showed the victim’s clothes and face face with the victim’s e (the age of 36) and Franchisium operation, and the victim’s taking of the victim’s taking of the conversation in Dpenta-gun C, Gangwon-do; and (b) on one occasion, the Defendant was sleeped with the victim’s clothes and face with approximately three weeks of treatment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the evidence indicated in its judgment.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. Criminal facts in a criminal trial should be established based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as where the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487 Decided April 28, 2011). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court of first instance based on the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance (i.e., the Defendant, from the date immediately after the instant case to the court of first instance, made verbal abuse to the victim while dialogueing the victim in relation to the operation of the victim and Franchisor and working attitude of the victim at the time of the instant case, but the victim complained of his detention, as the victim did not appear at the time. (ii) The victim did not go to the Defendant’s satis.