A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, finds the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged despite the absence of any injury inflicted on the Defendant as stated in the instant facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant merely put the victim’s hand in order to prevent any defect in which the victim D was about to come up with the Defendant’s house in the fifth floor, and instead, the victim spawns and pusheds the Defendant’s hand, thereby faced with the Defendant’s head with the wall.

B. The Defendant’s act of self-defense/political act is merely the victim’s hand to prevent the victim from going up to the office of the Defendant with the fifth floor, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus, the facts charged in the instant case did not constitute a crime. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the defense

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court to the erroneous determination of facts, and the witness D from the Defendant to the investigation agency to the first instance court.

2) A consistent statement is made by D in light of the fact that D’s statement is consistent with the description on the left side of the face of D taken by the police immediately after the instant case (section 17 of the Investigation Record) and D’s medical certificate (section 29 of the Investigation Record). Based on this, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts the innocence of the defendant on the basis of the recording of the recording, but according to the defendant's statement, the above recording record (No. 1) is used.