A. In the process of misunderstanding of facts, the victim who was a person who was forced to face a face on his/her face on his/her face during the course of driving the victim's body was faced with the face, and the victim did not assault him/her as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. Although it is recognized that the victim was injured by the defendant's act due to misapprehension of the legal principle, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms in light of the defendant's intent, means and result of decoration.

2. Determination

A. The court below made a statement to the effect that the victim E has face from the defendant at an investigative agency to the direction of the defendant, and the victim's dynamics also stated to the effect that "the defendant was faced with face in the process of taking the defendant's head in the direction of the victim while the defendant and the victim have been in dispute with the defendant," ② the date and time indicated in the facts charged in this case, and at the place other than the victim, the defendant seems to have inflicted a bodily punishment on other students, ③ the defendant stated to the purport that he was aware of the fact that he had inflicted a bodily punishment on the victim during the second trial of the court below, ③ there was no circumstance to suspect the voluntariness of the above statements, and there is no other objective circumstance to reverse them in the appellate court, and thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not justified.

B. The Defendant’s act is justifiable in the lower court’s judgment with the same content as the grounds for appeal in this part.