1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The gist of the cause of the claim is that the Plaintiff is the security guard of the Kusan-si apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Defendant is the resident of the said apartment.

On October 20, 2016, at the instant apartment guard room around 18:10 on October 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) stated that the vehicle was parked on the right side of the road; (b) stated that “the vehicle was parked on the road; (c) the vehicle was discharged from the road; and (d) the flag’s work was carried out equally; and (c) flaging the Plaintiff’s flag; and (d) flaged the Plaintiff’s chest with both hand, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, such as chest flag, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

On May 10, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,00 in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch (Seoul District Court’s Gunsan Branch No. 2017 High Court’s Gunsan Branch) and the Plaintiff incurred bodily or mental damages due to the instant assault, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 5,301,540 in total, as well as KRW 301,540 in medical and pharmaceutical expenses, and KRW 5,301,540 in damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and videos Nos. 2, 4, and 8 as to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the defendant may recognize that the defendant committed the assault of this case, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff, such as the chest styposis and the right styping and salt styping that require treatment for about two weeks. Thus, the defendant shall be liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to such

The Defendant did not commit the instant assault or injury against the Plaintiff, and instead, the Plaintiff assaulted the Defendant and damaged the Defendant’s Otoba, and the Defendant claimed that the Defendant spent expenses incurred in employing substitute human resources, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone did not assault the Plaintiff.

(b).