A. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, and the defendant has legitimate defense against the victim's insult. Thus, the crime is not constituted.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a year suspension, two years of protection observation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the grounds for appeal by a defendant in the Criminal Procedure Act shall clearly state the facts that a judgment is a crime, the summary of evidence and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and when there is a statement of the facts that are the grounds for the establishment of a crime, the addition of punishment, or the grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment, it shall be clearly stated in the judgment (Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In a case where such a judgment is omitted, it shall constitute “when the judgment is not attached to the grounds for the judgment” and shall be deemed as the grounds for appeal. However, according to records, the defendant and his defense counsel stated that the facts charged in this case is recognized on the 9th trial date of the original judgment, and the lower court stated the facts constituting an offense, summary of evidence, and the application

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004, etc.). Even when the defendant's assertion is based on the defendant's assertion, the victim took a bath against the defendant, and it is difficult to view the defendant's act when the victim takes a head against it as a defense against the bath view, and it is socially accepted in light of the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by both parties.