All the judgment below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the point of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the first instance judgment), the Defendant did not have an intentional act of assault by misunderstanding the victim's arms in order to prevent escape or by defending the victim passively against this, and thus, the Defendant did not have an intentional act of assault by misunderstanding of legal principles (the first instance judgment) or defense by misunderstanding of legal principles.

As to defamation (the second instance judgment), the Defendant did not commit any act identical to that stated in the facts charged.

(b) The sentencing division (the first instance judgment: a fine of KRW 300,000, KRW 2000, KRW 3 million: a fine of KRW 3 million);

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant ex officio are sentenced to each judgment of the court below, and the defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the court of second instance and the court of second instance decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Since each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and it is reasonable to sentence one punishment in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the first and second judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. In a case where there is no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction during the appellate court’s trial process of a judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that the first deliberation evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was significantly unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the court shall not reverse without permission the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first deliberation (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The court below deemed the victim’s and employees’ statement and the victim’s speech and behavior at the time of the instant occurrence.