The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Unlike the facts charged by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant does not intentionally spawn the victim A with water.

It is limited to the fact that the victim and the victim are sealed in order not to take the sponsor.

Furthermore, since the defendant's act was occurred in the course of resisting the defendant's act not to deprive the victim of the defense, it should be viewed as a legitimate act or self-defense.

The judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 700,000) of an unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 11:30 on April 2, 2012, the summary of the facts charged: (b) sold the Defendant’s water to the head of the H sanitary treatment plant in Seopopoposi; (c) sold the Defendant’s water to the head of the H sanitary treatment plant in Seopoposi; and (d) took the Defendant’s body with a defect in order to have the Defendant deducted the head of the vessel; and (e) caused the Defendant to face the Defendant’s chest with a sanitary vehicle that was pushed down the Defendant’s chest, thereby causing the Victim to suffer approximately 14 days of treatment

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

C. In ordinary sense, it is difficult to regard the act of attack and defense as "political act" or "self-defense" or "self-defense" because the act of attack and defense was conducted through a series of acts of attack and the act of defense was in the nature of both parties, at the same time. However, even if it appears that the act of attack was conducted, in fact, one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and to escape therefrom, it is deemed that such act is a new affirmative attack.