The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the preparation of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed assault against the victim, such as “No. 4 Won High Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 977, Sept. 9, 2015)” and rejected the allegation of grounds for appeal by mistake of facts.

Meanwhile, according to the records, ① the prosecutor indicted the date and time of the above facts charged in accordance with the indictment stating “as of October 15, 2014 and around 15:00, the prosecutor applied for the modification of a bill of indictment containing the content of the application for the modification of a bill of indictment which includes the modification of the date from the first instance trial to October 2010. ② The first instance trial notified the contents of the application for the modification of a bill of indictment at the seventh trial date and confirmed that there was no objection by the defendant and his defense counsel, ③ the defendant and his defense counsel did not recognize the changed facts as to the above.

The first instance court was arguing and disputed, and the defendant and the defense counsel provided an opportunity to submit evidence and make a final statement.

In light of this, it is evident that the facts charged by the lower court, which determined that assault against the victim’s Z are recognized, mean the facts charged after the amendment of indictment to the indictment to the “Felman on October 2014” as above.

Although the lower court stated the facts constituting the facts charged in the fourth instance judgment, it cited the facts constituting “the fourth instance judgment,” which stated as “the first instance judgment of October 2014, which was around 15:00, the market value of which was “the fourth instance judgment,” but which is “the fourth instance judgment.”