The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that there was no physical contact with E, and there was no injury to E as stated in the facts charged of this case, but there was an error of law that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Around August 20, 2015, at around 09:09, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) the Defendant’s strong barking around Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, 108 Dong 604, around 108 Dong 604, and the Defendant’s strong baring of the Defendant’s strong fluorcing of recycled products, such as paper stuff and rain distribution, was left alone on the front common stairs of the apartment C’s residence, and smelled with the Defendant, while having fluencing a dispute, the Defendant “hing, flus,” and flus of bitch, flus of bitch, flus of a bitch, flus of a bitch, flus of a bitch, and flus of the Defendant’s strong 1.5 flusing of the recyclable products.

Defendant 1, as a retaliation against the above assault by C at the above date and at the above location, she walked one time the left top of the victim E, who is the spouse of C, by generating one time, and was closely pushed down with the victim’s distribution of plastics 1.5 liters, a recyclable product.

As a result, the defendant suffered damage to the character of the following bridge, which requires medical treatment for about 10 days.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by adopting the following evidence as evidence.

(c)

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant inflicted an injury on E as stated in the above facts charged:

There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) The Defendant asserts that no injury was inflicted by consistently assaulting E from an investigative agency to this court.

2) E and C are in the investigative agency and the court below’s decision.