All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A fine of two million won shall be imposed on a defendant.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant injury even though it is merely limited to a substitute with a cane carried by him for the purpose of defending the assault of G, and does not unilaterally assault the said G, there is an error of misconception of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: the fine of one million won, and the second instance judgment: the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the case of this Court No. 2013No1424, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this Court No. 2013No1805, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the oral proceedings. Each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of first and second is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the extent that aggravating concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of second and

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (i) the victim G consistently stated from the investigative agency that “the Defendant had been dead at the time, but the Defendant had taken away his stick,” and (ii) H and I who had observed the scene at the time also stated that “the Defendant and the victim had expressed their desire to talk with each other; (iii) the Defendant got the victim’s stick back to the victim’s left part by taking away the victim’s stick; and (iv) the victim did not look at the victim’s left part.”