The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as misunderstanding the legal doctrine expressed that F does not want the punishment of the Defendant in the police, the instant public prosecution should be dismissed.

B. The Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, found the Defendant guilty on the facts of the instant case by misunderstanding the fact only based on the F and G statements without credibility, although the Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, removed the name tag attached to the victim F’s chest and did not assault the victim.

2. Determination

A. At around 16:57 on June 5, 2014, the Defendant committed assault against the victim by removing name tags attached to the victim’s chest and allowing the victim’s body to comply with the victim’s body, on the ground that the mother, who was accompanied by the Defendant, did not give up to the victim F (e.g., 56 years of age) who worked in the Macconer, and the victim did not refer to “I would am in the face of the member.”

B. In order to recognize that the victim expressed his/her wish not to punish or withdraws his/her wishing to punish for the crime of non-violation of punishment, the victim’s genuine intent should be expressed in a way that is obvious and reliable, and such expression of wish cannot be withdrawn or expressed that he/she wishes to punish again after one explicitly indicated.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3405 Decided September 6, 2007). According to the records of this case, the victim F stated to the effect that “A police officer, who was dispatched after receiving a report on June 112, 2014, does not want punishment against a minor assault case” (Evidence No. 3).