The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not contain any fact of drinking the victim's face as stated in the facts charged of this case, and even if such fact exists, it constitutes a passive defensive act that spawns the victim, and thus should be pronounced not guilty. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the pertinent facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawful act.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court of the trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and in particular, according to the record of the record submitted by the victim through the prosecution after the fifth trial of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had inflicted bodily injury upon the victim while making a fluence between the victim and the date stated in the facts charged of this case (the defendant's defense counsel is the defendant's defense counsel, who caused fluence to the defendant's act of fluoring the victim's act by fluoring the victim's act by fluoring the victim's act by fluoring the victim's act by fluoring fluor after fluoring the victim's face, but even if so, fluording the victim's face rather than the right face of the victim, so it is not reasonable to accept the defendant's argument that the above fluoring injury occurred on the right side of the victim.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, what act does not violate the social norms and the illegality is excluded from the grounds of appeal shall be examined individually under the specific circumstances and on the basis of the purpose and reasonable consideration.