A. The court below found the victim guilty on the grounds of the victim's statement, but it is difficult to believe the victim's statement because it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement was made, such as preparing a written agreement to the effect that not only the victim's statement is contrary to the rule of experience, but also the victim's statement was misunderstanding himself/herself.

B. The Defendant, while making a dispute with the victim due to divorce or division of property, etc., was only the victim’s head at least several times, which constitutes a justifiable act in light of social norms.

2. Determination

A. 1) The evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is that the victim’s statement is deemed to be reliable to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubt, and all the evidence mentioned above are considered to be sufficient to consider the following facts and circumstances shown in the argument of this case. The defendant suffered injury to the victim by making the victim go beyond the floor by making the victim go beyond the floor when considering the head of the victim several times.

The facts charged in the instant case are fully recognized. ① The victim has consistently stated the Defendant’s act of assault and degree of assault, the victim’s degree, and the circumstances against which the head was faced, etc., which are the core part of the instant facts charged. ② The Defendant also stated that “the head of the victim was sealed by several times,” and that “the victim’s face and head was contacted with the wall when the victim exceeded the victim” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1488, Apr. 1, 2009). ③ The Defendant’s father and wife met the victim’s face or head over five times,” and “the victim’s shoulder or head was contacted with the wall” (in 263 pages of the litigation record, etc.).