A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the statement of the victim of the mistake of fact and the statement of the dispatch report (the 19th page of the evidence record) prepared by the police officer F who was dispatched to the site at the time of the instant case, the lower court did not recognize the part of the facts charged in this case that “the Defendant spited the victim’s face” on the ground that there is no evidence.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a sum of KRW 300,000) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim took the police investigation following the occurrence of the instant case, “The defendant did not come to his own attitude in relation to the assault case which was committed at a low level before the instant case, and the author tried to avoid the Defendant, but the defendant attempted to keep his face back, spited his face into the low face of the defect that the defendant attempted to go to go back, and then saw the Defendant’s flick, and flicked the Defendant’s flick.

“The court below made a statement corresponding thereto in the court below’s trial, and in the column “the personal information of a shot person and the summary of witness” of the on-site dispatch report (No. 19th of the evidence record) prepared by F by the police officer F, E considered that the above police officer spits the victim.

It is recognized that the statement is stated as stated.

2) However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant spits the victim’s face to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

Now, it can be recognized otherwise.