A. Defendant 1, such as misunderstanding of facts, was cut off by the victim to defend the victim’s forced growth, and there was no intention of injury among the Defendant, and the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense or excessive defense. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's defense or excessive defense is socially significant, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and level of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the infringing act, and the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the infringement act. The defense act as a requirement for the establishment of a political party's defense includes not only pure passive defense but also anti-defense that includes active anti-defense. Such defense act requires considerable reasons for defending his or her or others' infringement of legal interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992; 2002Do6285, Jan. 24, 2003). In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's act of defending the legal interest of the victim, which is sufficiently infringed upon by the victim's legal interest, the defendant's act of defending the victim's legal interest as stated in the judgment of the court below, can be sufficiently acknowledged by taking into account the following circumstances: