The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, damage to the reputation of a victim, salt panion, tension, etc. cannot be deemed as an injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act because it is extremely insignificant or king that can be naturally cured within a short time, and it is difficult to deem that the victim’s physical health condition was changed to a poor one and that there was an obstacle to the function of life.

In addition, there was no intention of the defendant to inflict injury on the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

(1) On December 14, 2014, around 18:00 on December 14, 2014, the Defendant got the victim’s neck by two descendants who were disputing the victim.

② According to the photographs attached to the victim’s statement (which appears to have been taken by the investigative agency), the victim’s upper part of the neck appears red.

③ On December 15, 2014, the victim was diagnosed as having been in need of medical treatment for 14 days due to the “damage to the salt, tension, and salvity of a salknife” under the view that “in the case of a salknife, the salknife has been flown at the beginning of the salknife, and in the case of a item, the salknife of the salknife is visible above the salknife in the front part.”

In light of the above facts, the Defendant’s act of cutting down and pushing ahead the victim’s timber caused “damage to salt, tension, and sacrificing of trees”, and in light of the contents, etc. of the medical certificate, such act constitutes injury to the victim’s crime.

In addition, in light of the defendant's act, the degree of injury of the victim, etc., the intent of the defendant shall also be sufficiently recognized.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.