The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

In the facts charged of this case, remaining assault is committed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles, since the victim I was a crime of non-violation of intention, and the victim I did not wish to punish the defendant.

With regard to misunderstanding of facts, the defendant did not pay a fee for the victim E, who is a taxi engineer, and did not inflict an injury on E, due to defects in setting up a taxi, and due to the wind to dance from E.

On the point of continuing assault, the Defendant her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother and her mother her mother her mother her mother her her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother, and her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother is not a her mother her mother her mother. As to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Crimes of Domestic Violence, the Defendant was unable to receive the instant

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the remaining assault in the facts charged of this case is a crime falling under Article 260(2) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim I expressed his/her intent not to prosecute the defendant on September 26, 2013, which was before the judgment of the court below after the prosecution of this case was rendered. Thus, the court below should dismiss this part of the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of punishment against non-prosecution in the crime of assault, thereby finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thereby, it cannot be maintained as it is illegal and

. This point.