The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not exercise a tangible power to injure the victim, although there was a fact that he attached himself and added his arms to him at the time of the instant case, and such act constitutes self-defense.

2. Determination

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

According to the records, on October 23, 2015, the court of original judgment rendered an examination of evidence on the ground that the defendant filed a request for formal trial on the third trial date and had been absent on two consecutive occasions on the trial date under Articles 365 and 458(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and that the defendant did not appear on the court date, and that the defendant filed an application for recovery of the right to appeal against the above judgment after the above judgment became final and conclusive by the Doing of appeal period, and that the defendant filed an application for recovery of the right to appeal against the above judgment, and if the court rendered a judgment following the trial without the defendant's appearance even though the summons of the third trial date of the original court was not legally served on the defendant, it can be recognized as a cause for which the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the statutory period and thereby,

Accordingly, the trial court was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to the reason that the defendant cannot be held responsible, and the judgment of the court below is no longer able to maintain since all the trial procedures, including the examination of evidence, have been newly conducted.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the ground for ex officio reversal as above, and this is examined below.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim's front-down of the defendant at the time of demanding the taxi fee is the shoulder of the victim.