The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts and legal principles acknowledged the fact that the victim suffered an injury due to a mistake of fact and a mistake by the defendant, there was no intention to inflict an injury on the victim by leaving a stone, which is a dangerous object, and thereby facing the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the liability of the defendant, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

The court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above part.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the E shooting range located in D on February 14, 2016, the Defendant: (b) laid a stone, which is a dangerous object, to the victim C (21) while leaving the shooting range; and (c) sustained injury, such as damage of crypology, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim, in line with the victim’s Us.S. and the military branch.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that in light of the degree and degree of the victim’s injury, the instant stones were deemed dangerous goods.

(c)

(1) Determination of whether there was a willful negligence as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the relevant legal doctrine, refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the probability of the occurrence of the crime, and there was an willful negligence.

In order to do so, there is a awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and there is a internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the offender allowed the possibility of the crime, or not, is specific, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was disclosed outside, rather than dependent on the statement of the offender.