가. 사실 오인 피고인은 피해 자로부터 폭행을 당하면서 이에 대항하여 피해자의 얼굴 부위를 할퀸 사실은 있지만, 원심 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같이 손바닥으로 피해자의 얼굴을 수 회 때리지는 않았다.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the charges.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant sustained an injury by taking the victim’s face into consideration with the wheels and hand room of the victim’s face.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant.

The victim made a statement to the effect that he/she conforms to the facts charged in this case in an investigative agency and court of original instance, and the statement is specific, consistent, and no other circumstances exist to suspect credibility.

The photograph of the victim's parts of damage (the 39th page of the evidence record) corresponds to the facts charged in this case.

The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “at the time, a person injured has committed any act against the victim even though he/she had a large face,” “the same shall apply in response to him/her in his/her hand,” and “breathing, her arms,” respectively.

B. A person who has suffered unfair damage in sentencing is punished for the defendant.

However, the Defendant recognizes the instant crime as a substitute and reflects it.

In this case, the defendant and the victim have inflicted bodily injury on each other while taking a bath with each other, and some of the circumstances may be taken into account.

The defendant is a violation of food sanitation law.