The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged, the Defendant did not incur any injury to the victim by violating his duty of care.

B. The Defendant is only a self-defense or legitimate act to defend the victim’s assault and obstruction of business. As such, illegality is excluded.

2. The Defendant, on June 11, 2013, sent a water signal at the entrance of the apartment house C in the mountain of the mountain of the mountain of 08:00 on June 11, 2013.

Since victims D(35 years of age) and C(35 years of age) were driving their jobs, and the management office, and the grandchildren were fluored, the victim should have been careful in assessing the face of the victim by ppuri loss, and thus, the victim should have been careful in assessing the face of the victim, but the victim was injured by approximately three weeks of the victim's face, and the victim was able to be treated on the right side for about three weeks of treatment.

3. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges by taking account of the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized.

1) The Defendant stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below and the court of the trial that the Defendant’s hand did not have any fact that the Defendant’s hand did not fit for D’s entry. 2) Accordingly, D stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “D would go to the Defendant as the management office, but he would have put his hand in the process, and the Defendant’s hand would have been on the part of D’s entry.”

3) D states that when the Defendant’s clothes were taken and towed, the Defendant’s hand was fluored by the Defendant’s hand when she was pushed his hand, D states that he was fluored by the Defendant’s hand, and that 02:17 of the CCTV images at the instant site were stated as at that time (in the investigation record, 67 pages of the CCTV images and the above CCTV images were taken by the Defendant as if the Defendant was fluored by D’s hand. However, the above CCTV images were taken.