The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in the absence of a mistake of fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim's chest.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in this case at the trial before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and the prosecutor applied for changes to the purport that the applicable provisions of this case are changed from "injury" to "injury" to "Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the applicable provisions of this case were changed to "Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. In conclusion, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is decided as follows.

Criminal facts

On July 28, 2012, around 14:00, the Defendant expressed a desire to report the change of the location of the Defendant’s abscambling in front of the victim D (Inn, 65 years of age) located in Sincho-si C, and assaulted the victim by blusing the victim’s chest with the defect that the victim would not take a bath.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement made by the witness D, E, H, and I in the protocol of the second and third trial of the court below;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant asserts that there is no assault against the victim in determining the defendant's argument regarding the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, the victim stated the fact of damage in a specific and consistent manner from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and this is E.