Since there was a defendant's act in the course of trying to escape from the defendant's office by preventing the defendant who tried to get a school office, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act or self-defense.

The punishment (fine 500,000) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the evidence duly examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, on-site CCTV images), the fact that the defendant gets off the victim's left part and pushed off the victim's wall may be sufficiently recognized.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In light of the above legal principle's argument, the above act of the defendant against the victim did not occur in the course of the defendant's attempt to escape from the office because the victim prevented the defendant who wants to take a school conference office.

The defendant's legitimate act or defense based on the premise that it occurred in the situation of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

No injury inflicted on the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing is serious.

The defendant is the first offender, and is the aged.

However, the defendant still did not recognize the crime of this case and did not seem to have an attitude against the defendant.

In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions, such as the character and conduct, the environment, and the background of the instant crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be inappropriate because it is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it has no reason to appeal.