Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is prepared for employment C, and the victim D is working at C House Repair Business Bureau.

On June 3, 2014, the Defendant, at around 18:50, 18:50 on Asan City E, was under the influence of alcohol and was in dispute with the victim due to a workplace problem, and was under the influence of alcohol, when the head of the victim was flicked once, and when the victim’s face was 4-5.

As a result, the defendant injured the victim with a multi-lateral and multi-lock open wound that requires treatment for 14 days.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) The grounds for the defendant to the effect that the defendant has reached D's head one time in U.S. are the only statement of D, and it is difficult to believe D's statement in light of the situation at the time, the body and form of the upper part, etc.

2) Meanwhile, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses a tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, unless it is deemed that such act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable that it is permissible in light of social norms, and its illegality is dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). According to the records, D, as a result of the records, seriously seriously sought another defendant on the top of the other defendant who was under his/her command, “as you can see,” and a witness at this time reported his/her death to 112.