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 Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant did not inflict a bodily injury on D on the drinking bridge, face, etc. around 05:30 on January 11, 2008 due to drinking and salleg, face, etc., the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, there was an error of law by mistake of facts.

Judgment

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

Punishment for latter concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity and cases where judgment is rendered at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court should try to examine the specific contents of the crime which became final and conclusive through the court's decision or the statement of related persons.

(2) The court below held that the crime of injury to the above crime and the defendant of this case constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and did not examine all of the facts of the previous crime through a judgment or the statement of related persons, etc., even though the court below determined that the crime of injury to the above crime and the defendant of this case constitutes concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and did not examine all of the facts of the previous crime.

Therefore, the lower court cannot be deemed to have sentenced to punishment for the crime of injury of this case in consideration of equity and the case where the lower court concurrently rendered judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower court became unable to maintain any further.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the witness D's statement on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant on January 11, 2008.