가. 사실 오인 피고인은 피해자의 멱살을 잡거나 ‘ 전과 자’ 라는 말을 한 사실이 없고, 습관적으로 침을 뱉다가 침이 피해자의 얼굴에 튄 것일 뿐, 피해자의 얼굴에 침을 뱉은 적이 없다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (700,000 won) against an unjust defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, tried to take a weak point, such as (i) where the Defendant and the victim were frightened and frightened, (ii) where the Defendant and the victim were frightened in the face of the victim, and (iii) where the Defendant frights in the face of the victim, and (iv) once “(the Defendant) frightened”, and (iv) one frightened, “the former frighten?” and (v) “the latter frighten”.

Therefore, 3 times the words 'the person before the past' is called 'the person before the past'.

The statement is that the Defendant made a relatively concrete statement about the Defendant’s assault and defamation remarks; ② the Defendant’s spitation at the time of spawn G did not see the victim’s breath, or spit the victim’s face, and the Defendant did not hear the statement that “the Defendant was a person before spawn.”

While making a statement, he was only within the management office, and he did not appear, and the witness F was made to have been in the situation because he had the defendant and the victim continuously, and therefore he was in the situation. ③ He stated to the effect that the defendant and the victim tried to fight one another while the defendant and the victim were in a dispute with a large interest, and that he was spiting the victim “the victim spited on this face.” ④ The defendant stated to the effect that he was in the investigative agency. < Amended by Act No. 2019, Mar. 1, 201>