The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts a misunderstanding of facts is merely a protest against the victim from a defensive perspective to prevent the victim from taking advantage of the victim’s intentional intrusion into the boiler room owned by the Defendant, which caused the victim to bring about a sloping bridge owned by the Defendant. Even if there was a somewhat insulting speech to the victim in such process, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had had an intention to insult at the time, and it is more difficult to view that such an act constitutes a justifiable act committed at the defense level, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

Therefore, although the defendant should be acquitted, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts that affected the judgment.

B. The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable to impose a fine of 300,000 won imposed on the defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the CCTV images duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. ① If D enters the boiler room of the Defendant and long long, the Defendant appeared in the boiler room, and thereafter, the Defendant attempted to talk with the victim in the underground stairs leading to the boiler room, and attempted to talk with the victim. On the face of D’s body, it reaches the victim’s body, and the Defendant tried to talk with the victim in the arbitration. However, the Defendant tried to talk with the victim in a state near 1 minute 30 seconds of the victim, and ② D’s statement at the investigation stage, “I see the victim as the victim, and I see as “I am a new, me,” while enhancing the victim’s character,” and is relatively neutral.