A. Unlike the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not take a bath or use assault against the victim C. However, the victim was only passive defense to leep the Defendant’s chest and breathize it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the Defendant was found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing test, the lower court’s sentencing ( fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, found the following facts: (a) the victim suffered a serious hole in the face due to the instant crime, and suffered an injury, such as an interview with the face, and an interview with the left-hand check; (b) prior to the occurrence of the instant crime, it appears that there was no such evidence (as seen above 41 pages of the trial record); (c) the degree of injury suffered by the victim was not minor; (d) the witness and E, at the police investigation stage, stated that the Defendant and the victim carried a erobbbbbial, and the victim stated that the victim carried the body fighting (D stated at the court of the court of the court below that there was no fact that the Defendant did not look into the body of the victim at once, but again, it could be sufficiently recognized that the victim suffered an injury due to the Defendant’s assault corresponding to the victim’s assault, and that it cannot be viewed as legitimate acts or self-defense, and thus, the judgment of the court below is justified.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.