The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not commit an injury by assaulting C and D, and in particular, D’s symptoms are attributable to the king symptoms caused by D’s oral disease. 2) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (a fine of one million won for each of the defendants: one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. At the time of C and D (Definites), three men of the physical attack A and B, other than A and B, assaulted themselves by joint, and they were unilaterally assaulted by them, and they did not inflict any injury by assaulting A and B.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (Defendant A) and the prosecutor of the facts-finding examination, although the court below found Defendant A guilty of this part of the charges, the court below found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment ex officio (guilty part against Defendant A) on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the prosecutor ex officio examined the first head of the facts charged against Defendant A in the first instance court, and the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the applicable provisions of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, stating that “The judgment of Defendant was finalized on November 26, 2015 by being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act and a fine of KRW 2 million at the Chuncheon District Court on June 23, 2015,” and that “the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act” was added to the applicable provisions of the Act, and thus, the judgment of the lower court was modified by this court, and thus, the conviction part against Defendant A was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant A and the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.