A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine are as follows: (a) the Defendant was injured by the assault of the victimized person; (b) and (c) the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to whether the Defendant did not interfere with the increase in the number of people who would be subject to punishment.

It is nothing more than ever called “here, and there is no desire for the victim to harm, and there is no possibility of spreading to the third party.”

In addition, the above act by the defendant cannot be deemed to be an insulting act to the extent that it goes against social norms.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the consistent statements of the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) and consistent with the statements of witnesses, etc., the court below acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged, although the defendant was found to have inflicted bodily injury on the victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, can recognize the Defendant’s insult of the victim as stated in

The defendant's argument was rejected.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant: (a) The defendant: (b) stated that "the defendant would have expressed a brue before leaving a garbage and take the time expenses," and the injured person abused the defendant; (c) the defendant was punished against the victim.

“I stated to the effect that it was “(140, 141, 172).” The above Defendant’s statement was made.