The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for rape and bodily injury resulting from rape at Seoul High Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on May 2, 2013.

1) On February 5, 2016, the Defendant suffered special injury from a headline located in Pyeongtaek-si in Gyeonggi-do on February 5, 2016, and from the victim C (57 tax) who was at the time of his/her death of another person, the victim C (57 tax) laid the glass beer, which is a dangerous thing for the horse urier, laid the victim with a view to the number of days of treatment.

2) The Defendant damaged property at the time and place set forth in paragraph 1, and the market price of the victim D, owned by the victim, was broken up, thereby destroying the victim’s property.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) has no fact of gathering the beer and beer in favor of the victim.

The defendant is faced with the beer balance of the defendant in the course of galking with the victim C. In the course of galking, the damage victim walkings the beer balance.

3. 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had the victim C,

2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant intentionally laid the beer and broken down the victim C, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

① Since the lower judgment, the Defendant consistently asserted that the victim C was faced with the beer residues cited by the Defendant during the dispute, and that the Defendant was not suffering from beert.

(2) "Special credibility" in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be made.