The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The victim who misleads the defendant as to the misunderstanding of the facts does not have suffered any injury to the fluoral base and tension by the defendant.

2) The misapprehension of the legal doctrine is erroneous inasmuch as the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is either an act to defend the Defendant’s assault or passive resistance against the Defendant.

3) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court: ① the victim saw a pain on the back of the right side of the Defendant’s act at an investigative agency; and the victim saw soup and make soup at home even before receiving a written diagnosis of injury on August 25, 2017 to treat it.

Considering the fact that the statement (33 pages of investigation records) and (2) the content of the written diagnosis of injury conforms to the victim’s statement and there is no reason to reject objectivity and credibility of the written diagnosis of injury, etc., the victim may fully recognize the fact that he/she has suffered an injury by satisf and tension with the Defendant’s act.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

2) The Defendant also asserted the same as the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal doctrine.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① even based on the video submitted, the defendant appeared to have a strong degree of confising the right shoulder and chest of the victim, and thus the victim committed an unlawful attack against the defendant unilaterally.

2. A witness cannot be readily determined (41 pages of investigation records), and (2) A witness at an investigative agency may have been tightly and tightly sealed with the victim at the last time by the defendant with his/her hands at the investigative agency.

Comprehensively taking account of the statement (46 pages of investigation records), the defendant's act has the nature of an attack at the same time, which is a defensive act, and thus, it is a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.