The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant did not have any time when he was the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case. Even if the Defendant had certain force on the part of the victim at the time of the instant case, this constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act by merely passive resistance against the victim’s assault.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On July 1, 2013, around 21:25, the Defendant discovered that the Victim F (V, 50 years old) was under signature by explaining the proposal related to the collective housing management rules of the above apartment to the apartment residents, and that the Defendant was under signature by explaining the proposal related to the apartment housing management rules of the apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim's left arms with his arms one time, and by hand, the victim's left arms.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, based on the evidence in its holding, the Defendant could have recognized the facts of assaulting the victim, such as the instant facts charged.

C. 1) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor’s burden of proving the facts charged in the criminal trial, and the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant’s interest as evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151, Jul. 22, 2010).