A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Although the Defendant has made a dispute over the issue of preparing for the food of the victim at the time stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

2) Since the Defendant only got her grandchildren to the victim, there was a physical contact between the Defendant and the victim.

Even if the defendant did not have the intention of assault, such act is an act for the defendant to defend himself, so it constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below is consistent with the evidence of the court below, based on the following circumstances, i.e., the attitude and behavior of the victim after the date of the marital fighting in this case, i.e., ① the victim's attitude and behavior (the victim's attitude after the date of the marital fighting in this case is notified to the mother of the fact of violence, demanding the prevention of recurrence by finding the mother's mother at his low time), the victim's active interval at the time of the victim's behavior (the time after the time of the marital fighting in this case was 23: the time after the time of the marital fighting, and the next day after the time after the time of the war with the mother's behavior, the victim's attitude and behavior do not conflict with the ordinary attitude and behavior that the party can take immediately after the victim's fighting; ② the mother who received the victim's claim against

In other words, the victim responded to the Kakao Stockholm text to the effect that the victim's misunderstanding of the victim's misunderstanding of the victim's misunderstanding of the victim's misunderstanding of the victim's misunderstanding that it was violence. ③ The victim's attitude and behavior immediately after the husband's fighting in this case are not premised on the division of marital relationship with the defendant, but on the premise of maintenance. At the time, the couple's relationship is also based on the premise of maintenance.