The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. The victim misunderstanding the facts does not suffer an injury by the act of the defendant.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Legal reasoning is that the Defendant’s misunderstanding of legal doctrine was the passive defense against the victim’s unreasonable assault, thereby constituting a legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (the amount of 500,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 18, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at the top point of “C” located in Syang-si B on April 18, 2019; (b) at the victim D (53: older than the victim’s failure to pay land rent; (c) had the victim and his body fightd while disputing the issue of delinquency in payment of land rent; (d) caused the victim’s knee kne se se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-se-siming

B. On the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

(c)

1) The injury of the relevant legal doctrine refers to the injury inflicted on the victim’s physical integrity or physiological function. As such, the injury of the victim’s bodily injury is extremely insignificant and thus, the injury is likely to normally occur during his/her daily life, even if there is no assault, and where there is no need for treatment, it cannot be said that the injury constitutes an injury in the crime of bodily injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15018, Nov. 25, 2016). In addition, in a criminal case, the injury diagnosis may serve as a flexible evidence proving the Defendant’s criminal fact along with the victim’s statement, but the injury is likely to constitute an injury.