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. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although he did not have any fact in G.

2. Determination

A. Since around 2005, since 2005, the 8th floor building of the instant facts charged was newly constructed in the instant case, when the F, the Defendant’s private village, was in progress due to nonperformance, he made an oral promise that D would receive an acceptance on January 201, and the G, the wife of D and D, operated the marina site.

In the meantime, when the building again exceeds a third party through an auction, the defendant thought that the moving party has operated the shop, operated the shop, operated the shop, and the building again goes beyond the auction due to this reason is D, and that the building has a good appraisal.

At around 11:00 on October 17, 201, the Defendant inflicted an injury on G, such as cirbows, saves, saves, etc. requiring treatment for about 21 days, on the ground that he was intending to go out of the elbow, following the Defendant’s “whether there are personal goods”, and that he tried to go out of the elbow, and that he tried to go out of the elbow.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

C. The Defendant consistently denied the instant facts charged to the effect that, at the time and time of the entry of the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the party, the visit was made by G and D to the shop, but there was no low time in G.

G’s statement in the court below’s protocol and the first protocol of interrogation of the police officer’s protocol against G, which seems consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, are G.