The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant had frenched with the victim D and franchis, there was no injury on the part of the above victim.

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

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the victim has credibility in the statement made at the investigative agency and the court of first instance, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court of first instance, the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

1) From the police to the court below's decision, while the victim was in dispute with the defendant and the defendant, the victim stated that he was able to take the back water from the defendant to the floor of the hand floor of the defendant, and that he was able to take the breath and spath from the wind to the floor of the wind, and that he was able to take the breath and spath, and then he was able to take the breath, so the statement is consistent with concrete and alternative. 2) At the investigative agency to the court of first instance, E also stated that he was when he was able to take the balth of the victim's balth from the defendant to the court of first instance. Although E was the mother of the victim, it is consistent with the victim's statements

3) The written diagnosis of the victim's injury is consistent with the circumstance and part that the victim suffered an injury from the defendant because it is written as "[name] NOS in the GOS in the Damoptyl typhalty, (e.g., degree and degree of injury] multi-scopic light (e.g., 14 days from the date of the award) and the circumstance and part that the victim suffered an injury from the defendant (the date of issuance of the above written diagnosis of injury is written as February 25, 2014, which seems to be a clerical error on December 2

( Results of the inquiry and reply to the Director of the Future Korean Hospital). (b)

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant did not have been sentenced to punishment, was committed by a contingent crime, and the mistake was replaced by another, and the victim's damage is the victim.