The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. On December 14, 2016, Defendant B assaulted A at a community hall around 19:00 on or around December 14, 2016. Since the aforementioned assault and the instant facts charged together with the assault and assault using the future, “an injury, such as an anti-spection, etc. requiring treatment for about 31 days” of A, the summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) there was an error of mistake in the lower court that acquitted Defendant B of the special injury part of the instant facts charged.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and changed the name of the crime No. 2. A of the facts charged from “Assault” to “injury,” and changed the applicable legal provision to Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and the facts charged are as follows: “Defendant A(58 years) and the victim A(58 years old), and a dispute with the victim for the said reasons, while drinking, the part of the face of the victim was 31 days, the prosecutor took part in the face of the victim and took part in the c1st day treatment.

The court applied for permission to amend the Bill of Amendments to "," and this court permitted it, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as the above was changed to the subject of the judgment.

However, the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal.

Even if the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined below.

3. Direct evidence of Defendant B’s assaulted A’s face-to-face in the future by a judicial police officer who made a judgment on the grounds of appeal is not sufficient to make statements in A’s investigation agency and court of original instance.

Therefore, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, A's statement is not reliable, and evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes an injury, such as a sudden compromise, by Defendant B's assaulting A's face face.