The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant did not err by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, and did not assault the victim by dumping the victim’s head

B. The behavior of the defendant is that spits or spits the face of the defendant in the process of responding to the victim, the illegality should be avoided as it constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by specifying the reasons in detail, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below determined that the Defendant committed an assault against the victim by breathing the victim’s breath, and that the above act satisfies the requirements for a legitimate act or a legitimate defense.

It is difficult to see

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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

A person who is a witness of the lower judgment does not intentionally spit the face of a defendant. However, in the course of a dispute between the defendant and a horse, he or she only spits spit on the floor of spit, and consistently makes a statement from an investigative agency to the court of the lower court. The statement made by the victim is consistent with the statement made by D in the investigation agency, which is a third person who has witnessed the above situation.

B. Circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant regarding unfair determination of sentencing are as follows.

The defendant.