The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not commit an act of breaking a flaps with the victim’s flaps.

B. The misapprehension of the legal doctrine is an urgent act in a situation where there is no other means to urge the defendant to pay wages, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized as having committed an assault by breaking the victim's breath as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) Until an investigative agency and a court of original trial, the victim stated the victim’s statement to the effect that “the Defendant, who was prone from a bus, was shaking of flabing, and flabed from a bus at the driver’s request,” specifically and consistently. 2) The victim’s statement is credibility in light of the following: (a) the victim’s circumstance leading up to the bus landing at a place other than the purpose map; and (b) the victim’s flabing the Defendant, the creditor, was difficult to find out the facts of the Defendant’s assault; and

3 The defendant also makes a statement that recognizes the victim's shoulder.

B. In light of the specific circumstances at the time of the instant crime committed by the court below lawfully adopted and examined, the victim's assault and degree, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, it is difficult to view that the Defendant's act of assault to collect claims does not violate social norms. Thus, the Defendant's act constitutes legitimate act is without merit.

B. There is room for consideration of the circumstances leading to the instant crime as to whether or not the Defendant is unreasonable, and the Defendant is aged.