The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, the court below did not render a judgment dismissing the public prosecution on the charge of assault among the facts charged in this case, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Sentencing of the lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won) is unfair since the crime of damaging property and the crime of assault that requires a dismissal judgment is deemed concurrent crimes and the crime of causing damage to property and the crime of assault that requires a dismissal judgment.

Judgment on the misunderstanding of legal principles

A. On June 4, 2017, at around 00:55, the Defendant: (a) at the main point of “D” operated by the victim C in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, to the site of 112 reports; (b) the police officers informed of the details of the report and whether the damage was inflicted; (c) the victim C (33 tax) stated, “I must see this shot, be asked, and be the subject of face”; (d) the victim’s face is sealed by head, knife the head of the victim’s hair, knife the victim’s face, and assaulted the victim at one time by drinking.

B. The judgment of this part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the same Act. According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the written agreement was submitted that “the victim shall not be punished against the defendant on December 1, 2017, which was before the judgment of the court below was rendered.” Thus, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the prosecutor's dismissal judgment under Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the prosecutor's above misapprehension of legal principles is with merit.

3. Thus, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding the above legal principles is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing, and the following is again reversed after pleading.