The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) ① The suspect interrogation protocol and the victim photograph of the police as to C are inadmissible with the consent of the defendant, and ② the statement of C and D, consistent with the facts charged in this case, is not reliable, and ③ the defendant's fighting with C and D constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by

2. Determination

A. At around 02:00 on October 16, 2017, the Defendant, within the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment guard room, pointed out a point of view about guard duty and took a dispute over the victim’s face, and assaulted with the victim, such as physical fighting with the victim, when the Defendant, who had been on the victim’s face, sold a food on the part of the victim’s face, and continuously lowered the Defendant’s back head on three occasions.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the statement made by C and D is reliable, and that the Defendant’s act of breathing in body fighting with the victim does not constitute self-defense in light of the process and progress of the instant fighting match.

C. 1) Determination as to admissibility of evidence of the police interrogation protocol C on the police interrogation protocol of the police interrogation protocol as to C constitutes a protocol in which judicial police officers recorded the statement of a person who is not the defendant. According to the records, C, the original person, appeared as a witness on the third trial of the court below, and made a statement to the effect that the actual authenticity is recognized, which is admissible under Article 312

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence list of the court below's judgment, the defendant consented to the damage photographs on the second trial date, but changed the purport to the third trial date, and the court below did so.