A. The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense, since it was merely a string of the victim’s jackets to oppose the victim’s assault.

(c)

Even if the sentencing is found to be guilty against the defendant, the sentence of the court below (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, such as photographs and CCTV images, the defendant is fully aware of the fact that spits the victim, spits the victim, frighting the victim, and frightening the flab, and then flabs of the victim.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another, that act cannot be deemed as an act of attacking a political party or excessive defense, since it has the nature of an act of attack at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case cannot be deemed as an act of attacking a political party or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200, etc.). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, (i) the Defendant avoided or attempted to defend the victim, and (ii) the Defendant was committed by other persons than the victim, and thus, the Defendant was able to request other persons, as stated in the instant facts charged, and thus, the Defendant did not have to have the extent of the victim himself at the time of assault.