The defendant, first of all, did not have an intention to inflict bodily injury on the victim in order to prevent the victim by breathing his her her breath, breath, and breathing his breath. Even if the defendant had an intention to inflict bodily injury on the defendant, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim committed an act identical to the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below with the victim's intention to inflict an injury on the victim, and the victim stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that his her sonship was increased in the process, ② the victim received medical treatment at the hospital on the day of the instant case, ② the victim stated in the name column of the medical certificate issued after the date of the instant case that "the son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's k

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted the defendant is just and the defendant's assertion of mistake is not justified.

Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is not reasonable.