A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the injured party at the time of the instant case, at the time of the instant case, found the Defendant and obscing the Defendant in order to resist the noise between the floors, and took assault, and the Defendant frighted a knife the knife in the knife pipe, but did not immediately brea the victim’s knife and knife the knife.

In addition, the defendant is merely a knife and an excessive defense is established in order to defend the defendant, who stated that the defendant would go through the victim and assault the defendant first.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for eight months and the observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected all Defendant’s arguments on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in the “determination on whether to establish violence, defense of a political party, etc.” in the said written judgment.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

The defendant's ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

B. In full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of a crime, means and consequence of a crime; and (b) the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court’s sentencing guidelines, including each of the circumstances in the lower court’s explanation as to the decision of sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair, as it is unreasonable.

This part of the appeal by the defendant is justified.