According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its judgment after compiling the evidence in its judgment as to whether or not the defendant committed an assault like the primary and preliminary facts charged, and explained that the evidence in its judgment is hard to believe or inadmissible for the reasons as stated in its judgment, and determined that according to its recognition facts, the defendant would be able to take off the defendant's arm's body and then see the defendant's body once again, and then see the defendant's chest part once again. The defendant's act in the degree that the defendant tried not to meet the above, and the chest part of the victim's chest cannot be seen as an unlawful aggressive act even if it constitutes an assault, even if it falls under the external form of violence, it cannot be viewed as an unlawful act in light of its motive or situation at the time. Rather, it is nothing more than a passive act (a resistance) that the defendant tried not to be subject to a new assault such as the first one, and it cannot be viewed as an act contrary to social rules.

In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and just in finding the process of cooking the evidence which was conducted by the court below in finding such facts, and the defendant's act cannot be deemed to be against the social norms, and the judgment below cannot be viewed as an unlawful ground for misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the legal principles of the crime of assault. We cannot accept the judgment of the court below because the court below erred in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, and it

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)