The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,00, and by a fine of KRW 500,000.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The defendants misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles do not have the clothes of the victim within the church, and the injury suffered by the victim cannot be viewed as an injury under the law.

However, the lower court found the Defendants to have committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury). Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine on injury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the first instance trial, the prosecutor conducted an ex officio determination under Article 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as the crime of assault or bodily injury in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury), and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act as Article 262, Article 260(1), Article 257(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act as the last sentence of the facts charged, thereby causing injury to the victim for approximately two weeks of treatment (in the case of the Defendants, the last sentence of the facts charged).

“In doing so, the Defendants conspired with the victim to assault, thereby having the victim receive approximately two weeks of medical treatment (influences, fluences, joints, fluences, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor) and multiple influences, and multiple influences.

The judgment of the court below on the facts charged in this case cannot be maintained any more, since it applied for permission to change the contents to "," and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

However, the part related to the revised facts charged among the defendant's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., the victim at the investigative agency and the lower court.