A. In the absence of the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by using violence as stated in the facts charged, the court below convicted the defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant’s act constitutes an element of the crime of bodily injury, it is dismissed that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act to defend the victim’s sudden harmful act.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the argument of the defendant under the title "the reason for the crime of oil" in the judgment of the court below, which is "the reason for the crime of oil". If we look at the above recognition and judgment of the court below in detail compared with the evidence legitimately adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just, and therefore this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant left his own private taxi at the entrance of the parking lot where the defendant works, and let him move the taxi to another place, and the defendant can recognize the defendant's face with his face one time and one head. It is difficult to conclude that the victim committed an unjust attack against the defendant according to the above facts of recognition, and even if the victim committed an attack against the defendant, the defendant and the victim committed an attack against the victim's face. Thus, the defendant's act is beyond a mere defensive act and constitutes self-defense or a legitimate act.