The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months and suspension of qualifications for each year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the Defendant did not support the victim's body from the patrol car by leading the victim's head or walking the victim's body at hand, and the act of injuring the victim's body by hand constitutes a legitimate defense, which is an inevitable exercise of force by the victim's body.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Direct evidence that corresponds to the facts of the instant case has been made in G’s investigative agency or court where the victim F and the scene of the instant case had been present, and considering the following circumstances, F, etc.’s statement is reliable. Thus, the Defendant may be recognized as having abused the victim as stated in the facts of the instant case in the lower judgment.

① A victim F makes a concrete and consistent statement from investigative agencies to the court of the court below regarding the assault by Defendant F.

② At the time of the prosecutorial investigation, G “The victim was forced to collect the head of the victim who was intending to come out of the patrol car and was taking a bath in the patrol car and forced him to bring him into the victim.

그 후 피고인이 피해자의 몸을 1분 정도 수회 찼다.

One himself has come to a smoking place in order to smoke tobacco because he gets too seriously the victim.

However, it was not considered that the defendant had been drinking the victim.

“The statement was made to the same effect in the original court (Evidence No. 636, 637, 641) and in the original court’s court.

③ Although G has some different statements from the initial facts, it seems that G was a police officer of the same police officer and failed to make a true statement on behalf of the Defendant, who was a ship.

Rather, G makes a false statement in order to harm the defendant.