폭행
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The Defendant, who is aware of the summary of the grounds of appeal, spits the nature of the grounds of appeal, is merely spits with the front window of a vehicle driven by the victim E, without any fact that spits or spits the victim’s face, the lower court recognized that the Defendant spits the victim’s face once, such as the instant facts charged.
Even if misunderstanding the legal principles, even if the Defendant is recognized that spits in the victim’s face, the Defendant is spiting the victim in order to refuse the entrance of a restaurant operated by the Defendant, and prevent the Defendant from taking a bath, so the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense.
Nevertheless, the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate defense.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legitimate defense.
Judgment
The court below made a statement to the effect that the victim spits or spits the victim's spits consistently in the police and the court of the court below, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as follows. The court below has credibility in the victim's statement.
The determination was clearly erroneous.
There are special circumstances or exceptional circumstances in which it is deemed that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement is significantly unfair.
In light of the fact that the images of the victim's photograph taken by the police immediately after the instant case conforms to the statement of the victim's above, and that the Defendant recognizes spits itself due to the chief window crepit of the victim's vehicle crepits, etc., the Defendant can recognize spits of the victim's face, such as the instant facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant's spits of the victim's face, such as the instant facts charged
As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant also holds.