The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to defend the victim’s desire, and to defend the victim’s ship, a mistake of facts has only prevented the victim’s boat from breath’s hand, and did not have the breath.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. Even if the defendant is found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, in light of the background and degree of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserts that there was no fact that the victim had frightened.

However, in an investigative agency and court, the victim consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant had inflicted bodily injury upon the victim by putting breath and spathing the victim’s breath while arguing the parking problem.” There is no special circumstance that the above statement is specific and clear, and there is no reason to deny its credibility.

In addition, there is also a diagnosis that the victim suffered from the injury such as light fluoral salt in need of treatment for about two weeks.

(2) The Defendant asserts that even if it is recognized that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim, it was a passive defensive act.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the victim was pushed the Defendant’s boat first. If the victim committed such an act, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act of escape or passive blocking it, even if the victim committed such act, also constitutes an act that is reasonable to defend the present unfair infringement (self-defense) or an act that is reasonable and adequate as the means or method of such act is satisfied and that is acceptable under social norms (political act).

(3) Therefore, the facts charged in this case based on the evidence presented by the court below.