A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The injured Defendant did not commit violence against the victim on a one-time basis, and therefore did not injure the victim.

2) There was no special intimidation: (a) the Defendant committed an act with the victim as shown by him; and (b) committed a threat, such as marking a table.

Even if the defendant's act of standing trees is somewhat strict against the victim, it constitutes an act that does not violate social rules.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the injured court i.e., the victim 1 had the right to left side of the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial.

(2) At the time, it was stated that the victim's argument was consistent with the victim's argument.

F and G did not see that the court of the court below did not see that the defendant's testimony was derived from the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have been unable to properly recognize the situation under the table table, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court (i.e., the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, committed the Defendant’s act citing the victim as the victim.

statement, 2. At the time, there was a statement

F is a threat to the defendant's dignity in the court of original instance.