The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant on the ground that there was no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim E or assaulted the victim, such as the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim E and assaulted the victim E, as stated in the facts charged, so the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

1) On December 2, 201, as shown in the facts charged consistently from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, the victim E made a statement to the effect that he suffered from an injury on the face of the face from the Defendant at around 16:00 on December 2, 201, and that he was assaulted by the Defendant again from the Defendant at around 8:30 on that day. The victim E’s statement is not consistent with the circumstances surrounding the dispute between the Defendant and the Defendant, but is specific by describing in detail the situation at the time of the Defendant’s speech and behavior, etc., and it is determined that the recorded file is in conformity with the victim E’s statement that the content of the recorded file at the time of the victim’s commission of the crime is damaged by the Defendant (the Defendant appears to assault what is the above recorded content). The victim’s statement asserts to the purport that the sound is merely a self-harm that the Defendant was under dispute with the victim E, and it does not constitute a sound that the Defendant’s victim E.

However, it seems to be common sense that this court's direct listening to the above recording file, in light of the flow of dialogue between the above recording file and the whole recording file, it seems that the sound is the sound that the defendant is the victim E.

(2) The victim E is the victim of this case.