A. There is no spitation or spitation against the victim D, and even if there is a fact that spits or spits are spits.

Even if it is merely a passive defense against the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence of the lower court, which sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000, is too unreasonable, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court consistently stated that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of fact: (i) the victim made a statement from an investigative agency to the lower court to the effect that “on December 19, 2015, at around 11:40, at the site of construction of C Officetel to the lower court, the Defendant spits his face several times in the process of fighting with the Defendant because he did not comply with his opinion on the work process at the site of construction of C Officetel construction; and (ii) the witness E also stated in the court of the lower court that “at the time of the Defendant’s safety appearance,” while the Defendant’s victim was “at the time of the Defendant’s spiting,” the victim was fright at the victim’s face, and the Defendant stated that “at the time of the Defendant’s spiting the victim’s face on several occasions,” as recorded in the facts charged, it may be recognized that the Defendant used spit the victim on several occasions.

However, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a justifiable act that can be accepted in light of the social norms.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is justified.