A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are only the case where the victim's head was somewhat flick, so it is difficult to see the defendant's act as violence. Since the victim's act was assessed as violence, the victim's act was first flicker and obstructed the defendant's work, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty, and thus the judgment of the court below is unlawful.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of the instant crime.

C. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the crime of assault as to whether it constitutes a “Assault” under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, “Assault” is a “exercise of force against a person’s body,” and thus, it does not require that the injured party’s physiological function is damaged or that the injured party’s health is harmed.

In light of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, the act of the defendant making the head of the victim one time constitutes a "Assault" under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act as an exercise of force against the body of the victim in light of the relationship between the victim and the defendant, the situation at the time, etc.

B. In order to be recognized as “self-defense” under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act as to whether an act constitutes “self-defense”, the act must be deemed to have a reasonable nature as a defense to defend the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Thus, “self-defense” as to an unlawful and lawful infringement is not recognized, and whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.