Since the prosecutor appealed only the non-guilty portion, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. According to CCTV images with the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), as the Defendant first attacked C, it is evident that C is a mere act of resisting the Defendant’s attack.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant, along with a written diagnosis of injury that C suffered bodily injury by causing injury to the Defendant, it is recognized that the Defendant was guilty.

3. Determination

A. As to the facts charged in this case, the lower court consistent with the first police statement in the assault case against C, which began with C’s report, from April 24, 2017 to the court of the lower court, that C was pushed down one’s own title.

(2) At the investigative agency and court of the court below, C made a statement to the effect that he was assaulted only once by the Defendant at the time of drinking by the Defendant, and that he was not sealed or assaulted by him, and D, a witness, also made a statement to the same effect in the court. However, according to CCTV images recorded at the time, according to CCTV images recorded at the time, C’s face was first set up by C, and C was first set up against C, and it was confirmed that the part of C’s face was pushed back to the outside of the Defendant’s upper part (the above image display 09:53:54), and continuously, the Defendant continued to take advantage of the right of investment, and it was confirmed that C was sold to and out of the Defendant (09:536:509-4:04:30) and that it was confirmed that the Defendant was a police officer at the time of violence or assault against C at the time of accusation.