A. The Defendant did not assault the victim, and the victim did not have any injury.

B. The Defendant’s act by misapprehending the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim by putting the mother of the crowdfundinger the victim suffered, and providing approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to what act does not contravene social norms and the illegality is excluded should be determined on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances. To recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006). The Defendant made an insulting speech from the injured party on the street at the time.

Even if the defendant gets up in the opposite direction, it cannot be said that the defendant's act of inflicting bodily injury on the victim by putting the mother of the crowdfundinger suffered by the victim in the direction of the opposite direction meets the requirements of urgency, supplement, etc. that should be met.

The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.