A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant only caused the victim to be able to satisfebling in response to the victim’s satisfecing speech to a private person on the job.

The defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense to escape from unfair infringement of the defendant's reputation or a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an assault, such as flabing and smugglinging the victim’s flab, etc., when the damaged person, who was the captain of the management office, was at the late payment of benefits.

In light of the background of the assault, the form and degree of the assault, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc., the Defendant’s act constitutes an active attack beyond passive defensive acts, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute a justifiable act that constitutes legitimate defense, or that satisfies the reasonableness of means and methods and balance of legal interests.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is somewhat contingent as the victim gets a high speech, and there are circumstances to consider the background of the crime in this case, and the degree of assault is too heavy.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the court of the first instance seems to have sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 700,00,00 in full consideration of the above circumstances, which is judged to be appropriate for the punishment within the scope of discretion of sentencing assigned to the court of original judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.