A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not spit the victim’s face, or spits the victim’s face, as stated in the facts charged, and merely spits it out of the victim’s face while doing a dispute with the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the Defendant.

At the time of the police investigation, the victim was aware of the victim's "the defendant was living in the same apartment as the defendant. On the day of the instant case, the victim took drinking by drinking the defendant at the house of kin on the same day. In the course of a dispute, which is about two years prior to the traffic accident agreement, the victim took as a matter of the traffic accident agreement, and the defendant took the behavior while taking the victim's bath, and took the knick, and knick the victim took the behavior, and the victim took the behavior at the seat of the victim, and the defendant taken the knick.

The victim reported that he was assaulted by Nein residents at the time of the initial police report (the fifth page of the evidence record), and J, the place of the case at the time of the initial police report, was not considered as spiting the victim’s face, but was spiting the victim’s face.

There is a fact that it threatens Poke and speaks against it (Evidence Nos. 9-10). These circumstances are all the damaged.