A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged of this case, although there was no misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and even if the facts of assault and assault were recognized, it constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, the illegality is avoided, and the victim expressed his intention not to punish the Defendant in the investigative agency, and thus the prosecution of this case should be dismissed. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below to comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, i.e., ① the victim consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below to the effect that himself was pushed down at several times at the time and place indicated in the facts charged; ② the above statement by the victim corresponds to the CCTV images of the center where this case occurred; ② the crime of this case occurred in the situation where the victim was going to the parking lot after assaulting the defendant at the new place of the community hall; ② it is difficult to view that the defendant was a resistance to escape from the victim's attack; ③ the victim's statement to the effect that "the victim was investigated by the investigative agency to the effect that he did not want punishment." However, it is recognized that the victim stated that "the victim was "I will report the victim and decide whether to punish the defendant, and it was yet unable to decide whether to punish the defendant." The above act of the victim is sufficiently recognized as stated in the court below's decision.