The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. The lawful act in the course of misunderstanding legal principles

I think only, and there was no intention or intention to commit assault to F, that is, there was no intention of assault.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, in particular F police statements, and copies of CCTV video images, the fact that the defendant was at the time of multiple times, depending on F, which caused the defendant to keep the drinking, to keep the shoulder and the chest between the F and the chest, can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that he did not have intention to commit violence cannot be accepted.

B. In a case where it is impossible for A to correct an act of guiding a student’s assault as a means of other educational means, only if the method and degree of such instruction have objective feasibility to be acceptable in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5380, Jun. 10, 2004). In light of the background of the instant case, the method and degree of the assault committed by the Defendant to F, etc., it is deemed that other educational means are impossible to correct, or that the Defendant satisfied objective validity in light of social norms.

Since it is difficult to see that the defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act, the defendant's assertion that it is excessive to a legitimate act in the discipline process is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In full view of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that there was an occurrence in the course of punishing F, who is a student, and there was no record of criminal punishment, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, the Defendant’s age, and the environment, the sentence of the lower court seems to be unfair due to its gross negligence.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is justified.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is justified.