The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, ① the Defendant merely told the victim and his employee to wrap, and did not assault the victim as described in the facts charged (misunderstanding of facts). ② The injury inflicted on the victim is naturally cured without having to treat (misunderstanding of legal principles) and does not constitute the crime of injury (misunderstanding of legal principles). B. The punishment that the lower court sentenced to the sentencing unfair (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable (the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted unfair grounds for appeal on September 7, 2017). The judgment of misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on September 2, 2017.

A. On December 6, 2015, the victim C (the remaining, and the age of 27) of the instant facts charged at the main point of “E” located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D around December 6, 2015, was dissatisfied with the employees of the establishment. This Defendant brought an dispute with “E” of the defect, “Ibk,” which “Ibk, Ibk, Ibk,” and snicked the Defendant’s flab.

The Defendant, as seen above, committed an injury to the victim, such as spawn, spawn, spawn, and spawn, and spawn the victim’s face by drinking 14 days, and spawn the victim’s face, which requires treatment for about 14 days.

B. 1) First of all, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the lower court, was physically admitted by taking a flaps of the victim’s face, and assaulting the victim’s face by drinking, can be sufficiently recognized.

2) However, an injury in the crime of injury refers to the injury of a victim’s physical integrity or impeding physiological functions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000; 2006Do8035, Feb. 22, 2007). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, the injury inflicted on the victim cannot be deemed as an injury in the crime of injury.