The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the misunderstanding of facts, the victim: (a) at the time of the case of the misunderstanding of facts, sent the door to the victim's house, led the victim to do assault against the defendant; (b) caused the wife of the victim to photograph the face by video; and (c) delayed the victim as if the victim was an assault against the defendant; (d) at the time, the defendant was drinking only sealed the victim's face towards the face; and (e) did not assault the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

In a state where the Gu was unable to hear, the victim was detained by the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted these facts and convicted all of the facts charged is erroneous as to the facts affecting the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant had a complaint against the victim at ordinary times. The defendant made a speech to criticize the victim after visiting the victim's house without prior notice at low time, even though the victim requested the defendant to leave the house, it is recognized that the victim and the defendant sent a aggressive speech between the victim and the defendant who did not comply with the request, and that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below in the process of the above video. 2) In full view of the above video, it is confirmed that the fact that the defendant committed the act of the victim at the time, as argued by the defendant, was likely to have committed the act of assault against the defendant, but it is not recognized that the defendant did not comply with the above injury and eviction of the defendant.

Also, when looking at the above video, the victim is assaulted as it appears.