A. In relation to a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant sought the victim’s house to verify whether he had entered his house, and it is merely a legitimate act that does not violate social rules because the victim opened the entrance door and moved TV. 2) In relation to the assault, the Defendant first fell under the victim’s breath to defend the defect of the assault, such as the victim’s bating bat and unloading on the floor, etc., to defend the defect of the assault, and thus, constitutes self-defense.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below related to the admission of a residential chips, 1) the defendant himself acknowledged the fact that he entered the victim's house, 2) the victim stated to the effect that he entered the defendant's house by entering the house where he reported the new chips without permission, and she would come to the room. 3) The defendant is doubtful that the victim's house without permission prior to the crime of this case was invaded by the defendant's house before the crime of this case, and there is a dispute with the victim, and it cannot be said that the neighbor's house was the same as the visiting of the victim's house only because the victim's house was opened due to the fact-finding, as argued by the defendant, even if he entered the victim's house through the door opened to verify the facts, it does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate social rules. Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.