Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s act constituted self-defense is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Around 23:00 on June 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) refused the request for conversation from the victim D, who was dissatisfied with the conflict of opinion regarding the election of the president of the reconstruction association; (b) sought to return home; (c) however, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim, by breaking the victim’s hand, making the victim go beyond the floor to prevent him/her from returning home, and by having him/her go beyond the floor, around three weeks of medical treatment.

3. The judgment of the court below

A. The evidence reveals the following facts.

① On June 18, 2014, at around 23:00, the Defendant parked in the parking lot of the Busan Eastdong-gu C apartment, Busan, and called “D and E” and called “A”.

The defendant refused to do so and entered the apartment entrance stairs.

② The Defendant was able to take the Defendant’s hand, E was able to take the Defendant’s hand, followed by D was fluencing her fluencies, and her fluencing her at the Defendant’s back, and her flusium was attached to the Defendant.

③ At this time, the Defendant spreaded D’s hand to left arms, and the Defendant was in excess of D’s hand, and was in excess of E’s day after the date.

(4) D had the head of the overcoming defendant kneeped with his/her arms, and faced with his/her arms.

B. Considering the following circumstances revealed in the above facts of recognition, the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the Defendant by breaking the hands of D with his left arms.