The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not assault the victim as described in this part of the facts charged, and with respect to the charge of obstruction of business around July 5, 2017 among each of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s toilet construction work as described in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of assault and obstruction of business around July 5, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case and erroneous determination of facts.

B. The Defendant’s act stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a justifiable act since it is an act to oppose the victim’s illegal infringement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the content of the Defendant’s assaulted the victim, and the victim’s statement about the contents obstructing the victim’s toilet construction work on July 5, 2017, which was consistent and specific from the investigation agency to the court below’s trial, and the victim’s statement about the victim’s toilet construction work is credibility, and the E (Interference with the Defendant’s assault and business) and F (Assault of the Defendant)’s statement about the situation at the time corresponds to most of the victim’s statement, the Defendant may assault the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged and recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s toilet construction work on July 5,

3. Whether a certain act of determining the misapprehension of the legal principle constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for excluding illegality is specific.