The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The victim first puts the Defendant’s hand in the process of spreading it, and there is no fact that the victim’s arms or flaps were debling as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the Defendant’s act is justified as a legitimate act. 2) Since it is reasonable to view that the victim embezzled the public funds equivalent to value-added tax in relation to the community hall and flapsing construction carried out around 2001, it does not constitute a statement of false facts.

Even if it falls under the statement of false facts, there is a reasonable reason to believe that the defendant is true and to believe that it is true.

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

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion". In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

B. Although the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is an old age of 81 years, there was a history of criminal punishment of a fine for a non-identical crime before the age of 81, it appears that it had been before 36 years from the instant crime, and that it appears to have reached the instant crime of assault in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner, and that the extent of the type of force exercised by the

On the other hand, the crime of this case is sold by the victim who raised by the defendant.