The defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

The sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the misapprehension of the facts of the grounds for appeal and the misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and has a dispute with other customers within the bicycle race track, and the security personnel, including the victim G, assaulted the security personnel, let the defendant out of the building, and brought the security personnel, including the victim G, into the bicycle race. The defendant again intending to enter the bicycle race track, and again blicked the part of the victim G G who prevented the defendant, and blicked the breast, and flicked it once.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is difficult to view that the act of the security personnel, when the defendant was aware of assaulting the victim G as stated in this part of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the act of assaulting the security personnel by the defendant, who boomed with other customers and boomed with other security personnel, was an act of assaulting the victim G against the defendant, as a legitimate duty of employees of the bicycle race track, is a justifiable act acceptable in light of social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

As to the wrongful argument of sentencing, the defendant has had the record of being punished several times for the same crime, there is no change in the special circumstances or circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the judgment below, and the age, sex, environment, and motive of the crime.