The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of this case, did not err by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, was not at the time when the D’s boom

Even if the defendant left hand of the defendant in the course of his/her family heading, it is a legitimate defense, even if he/she has gone through a cream of D.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. “Assault” under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act as to the assertion that there was no assault, refers to the exercise of force against a person’s body. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim D consistently met with the Defendant in the police investigation, and i.e., the victim D was consistent with the breast from the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated in the police investigation to the effect that “the fact that the Defendant was in contact with the victim’s scam with the victim,” the Defendant also stated in the police that “the Defendant was in contact with the victim’s scam.” (iii) nearby the police police that “the Defendant was in contact with the victim’s scam.”, the fact that the Defendant committed an assault by exercising the victim’s scam by force

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. To recognize a certain act as a legitimate defense of a political party’s defense, the act is to defend against the current unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2168, Mar. 15, 2017). The act of attacking one another with the intent of attacking one another is deemed to have the nature of an act of attack at the same time as an act of attack, and thus, the party’s defense or excessive defense cannot be established (see Supreme Court Decision 71Do527, Apr. 30, 1971). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the act of attacking one another is deemed to have the nature of an act of attack.