The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In order to prevent the damage of banner, the Defendant was only passive defense and did not have the intention of assault.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings, even if an assault was recognized, the Defendant committed an assault against the victim during the passive resistance against the victim’s act of assault, destruction of banner, and insult, and thus constitutes a legitimate act or legitimate defense.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant was assaulted by the defendant who was going on the bridge to remove the Stick banner on the right side”; ② The investigation report prepared by the police officer dispatched to the scene at the time was conducted by the victim, including that the defendant and the victim met several times in the process of removing the banner, and that “the defendant was written as the victim, and ③ the defendant also stated as the victim and the body fighting with the victim to stop it in the process of removing the banner,” comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the effect that “the victim was fluored with the victim to remove it in the process of removing the banner; and (b) the defendant made a statement to the purport that “the victim was fluored with the victim to stop it in the process of removing the banner.”

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. The following circumstances found in the judgment of the lower court as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine are as follows. ① The Defendant assaulted the victim by means of cutting down the arms of the victim who seeks to remove the banner on the bridge with his hand, and it cannot be deemed as the minimum defense to prevent the removal of banner, which constitutes a separate attack, and ② the above act may lead to the injury.