A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant, a H employee, committed a serious noise to the Defendant. However, I and J did not disclose his status. In general, the public institution’s office building protection duties were often entrusted to an external service company, and thus, did not recognize that the said employee was a public official. 2) The Defendant was an old age, who was a public official with a higher body and a minor physical contact with the Defendant, and did not commit assault to the extent that the J was to go beyond the floor.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below that I and J did not recognize that they were in the performance of official duties, 1) as the police assigned for special guard, 1) was in charge of the security and maintenance of order as H, and J was in charge of the safety management of the office building and civil petitioner guidance as a fixed-term worker belonging to the H operation support division, 2) was in charge of H, 1 and J was in a string line with the sign "H guide" on the first floor of the H office building with the flat uniform, 2) was in possession of the H identification card, 3) at the time when the defendant avoided disturbance as stated in the facts in the judgment of the court below and assault J as stated in the judgment of the court below, I and J explained the procedures related to the access control of the defendant to request the entry of H in rain and the elevator, etc., and 2) the defendant was in charge of performing his duties, 4) was in excess of what he will remove the defendant's news and body.