The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not guilty of spiting or spiting the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (hereinafter “the penalty amount of KRW 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim has consistently stated in an investigative agency about the background of the occurrence of expenses from the defendant to the court of the court of the court below; and (ii) the circumstances of spitation by the defendant through spitation; and (iii) G witnessing a field situation at the time of the court of the court of the court below

Although testimony was made during the police investigation process, the victim said to the effect that “the victim spits or spits the Defendant spits.”

In the second police investigation, the Defendant stated that “in the course of a single investigation, the Defendant spits or spits the victim, but the drafting did not ask the victim’s face.”

The statement is the same as a false statement to the victim that he/she would be spiting.

When considering the fact that the Defendant made a false statement, etc., the fact that the Defendant spits spits or assaults the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below may be fully recognized.

The assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The instant crime of this case’s crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is a spiting act of spiting the victim’s face, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the form or content of the crime, or that the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim

However, in the process of mutual vision with the victim, the defendant was causing the crime of this case, and the defendant was injured by the victim, and the crime of this case is concurrent crimes with the crime of this case committed after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.