A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant did not assault the victim's right side by opening the door of the driver's seat.

나. 법리 오해 피고인은 피해자를 폭행하려는 고의가 없었고, 설령 폭행의 고의가 인정된다고 하더라도 “ 쳐 봐! 씨 발! 더 때려 봐!” 라는 피해자의 도발 또는 승낙이 있어 폭행이 허용되는 특수한 경우라고 생각하고 유형력을 행사한 것이므로 법률의 착오에 해당하여 책임이 조각된다고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The sentence sentenced by the court below (the 300,000 won suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the effect that the victim was faced with the victim’s right bucks on the door of the vehicle; and (b) the Defendant is aware of the situation where the victim was pushed down on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby allowing the victim to exercise the physical power against the victim; and (c) thus, the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim by opening a car door to the victim’s right bucks.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles 1) Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that a person’s act of misunderstanding that his act did not constitute a crime under the law is erroneous and reasonable.