The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant was inflicted an injury on the victim by taking the head of the victim's hair.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

On February 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 19:10 on February 20, 2015, on the ground that the victim E (44 years old) who was seated in the d restaurant located in Busan YY C, said that he was fluencing by the Defendant, the Defendant collected the mebb flick, and got the victim’s head toward the victim’s head, thereby causing damage to the victim’s sabrity requiring treatment for up to 14 days.

The lower court’s judgment: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated; (b) that the victim was faced with the right side of the beer’s disease after the Defendant laid the beer back at the earth room; and (c) the victim was faced with the beer’s disease.

In making a statement, the police officer made a statement to the effect that he/she was the first head or the second head in telephone conversations with police officers (in 9 pages), and that he/she was the second head in telephone conversations with police officers, and that he/she was the second head in that he/she got the second head in telephone conversations with police officers.

In the court of the court below, the defendant lost his mind due to his head in the first place of the defendant, and the defendant's additional portrait was allowed to talk about the first place of the court of the court below.

The statement is not consistent with the victim's statement, ② the witness F and G testified made testimony to the effect that they correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, but there is a possibility to make a statement favorable to the victim in that they were the victim's friendship at the time of the instant case as the victim's friendship, and the defendant and F and G's statement are inconsistent with the fact that the defendant was the victim's behavior and the horse match before the defendant was released.