A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is merely the victim’s head, and the victim did not have spath and spathed with flaps, and the victim cannot be deemed to have suffered injury as stated in the facts charged due to assault to the extent that the Defendant inflicted on the victim.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense to escape from an unreasonable attack by the victim.

B. In light of the fact that the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing imposed a sentence more mitigated than a summary order on the victim (joint-defendant), the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of mistake of facts, the defendant's police statement (Evidence No. 89 pages) that the victim fats and fats and fats and fats the victim's head, and video CDs submitted by the defendant, the fact that the defendant used the victim as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged. In light of the contents of the assault and the degree of the victim's injury (e.g., fats and fats and fats), the injury can be found to have been caused by the defendant's assault. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

【Viewing screen by cutting the Defendant’s assault face on the video screen of the video CD】

B. In light of the misapprehension of the legal principle’s argument, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act is not merely a mere defensive act to defend the victim’s unfair attack, but also has the nature of an attack, taking into account the following factors: (a) the process and method of fighting, the situation at the time of the crime, and the Defendant’s behavior (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. We examine the judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing, the victim is punished as the crime of injury to the defendant, the victim's injury is somewhat minor, and the defendant is the primary offender.