A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and mistake of facts, the Defendant did not see the victim’s head debt and did not do so, and there was no causal relation between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s injury, and even if not, the Defendant’s act is passive defensive act and thus dismissed its illegality.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

① According to “the occurrence of and arrest report on an injury, etc.” prepared by a police officer who was dispatched to the scene immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, all the Defendant and the victim involved in the crime at the scene of the crime.

“..............”

② The victim consistently asserts to the effect that he/she is assaulting both parties from the investigation process. The Defendant also fighting the victim with his/her hair by putting his/her head debt up during the investigation process.

“............” stated to the effect.

③ Although there is no dispute as to the fact that the Defendant and the victim were suffering from each other, the argument that the Defendant only got off the victim’s head debt in the circumstances where the victim was able to obtain the head debt and trace the victim’s head debt cannot be accepted in light of the empirical rule.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant's act is deemed not a passive resistance, and it is determined that the defendant's act was based on his attack intent in the process of wrapping the victim's head, and it does not constitute a passive resistance. The defendant's act is deemed to be committed based on his attack intent.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Sentencing;