The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding that the Defendant, who was aware of the fact, inflicted an injury on the victims due to the occurrence of the victim C, D’s drinking, the vehicle, etc. However, the Defendant did not unilaterally inflict an injury on the victims, and the Defendant was assaulted by the victims.

B. Since the victim C of assault by misunderstanding the legal principles withdraws his wish to punish the defendant during the trial of the court below, the court below erred in finding the defendant guilty despite the fact that the court below should pronounce a judgment dismissing this part of the indictment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant inflicted injury upon the victim C and D as stated in the judgment of the court below, and even if the domestic victims resist part of them at the time of violence from the defendant, such circumstance alone does not justify the defendant's crime of injury of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Of the facts charged of this case’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, each of the assault charges is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the same Act. The victim C withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on June 19, 2015, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the lower court after the indictment of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment ought to be dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges and taken this into account only as mitigation element of punishment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of non-violation of intention, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.