- above by Kj1547 

  
 Above is comment about Battle_of_Busan_(1592).  

 I understand the difference. As you mentioned, the result of the battle is obviously strategic victory of Japanese forces. One the other hand, whose tactical victory cannot be judged with our information. Thus, it is enough to write strategic result of the battle.  

 Whether it is Joseon's tactical victory relies on the damage the both side took during the battle.  
 In Joseon's history record, I read that Yi said that he sank 128 Japanese ships (I was not able to find out where this actually comes from. I will be appreciated if you show me some references.), and the later summary says that empty 400 ships were sank. It also says that 1 Joseon high-ranking officer and 6 soldier were killed. 
 In Japan's history record, there were no notes of the damage. In later record, there were 400 and a little more Japanese ships there.  

 By comparing these, we may reach 3 results. 
 1. A quarter of Japanese ships were sank. These ships were empty. 
 2. All of Japanese ships were sank. These ships were empty. 
 3. Damage of Japanese ships were ignorable.   
 In case 3. the result can be said as Japanese tactical victory, but in the other cases, judging whose tactical victory relies on the costs of empty ships and of the lives of the officer and the soldiers.  

 With reviewing your modification of the topic, I assume that you are standing on the case 1.. Then, how do you judge "obviously Joseon's tactical victory"? I don't think it is simple.