A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the victim’s head, and the defendant did not unilaterally cut off the victim’s body, and did not go beyond the victim’s body, but did so with the victim. Since the victim got up the defendant, the victim’s head was only frighted to defend him, and the victim’s head was fright to the balance with the defendant, and the victim’s head was fright to the victim. However, the court below acknowledged that the defendant abused the victim as stated in the facts charged and inflicted bodily injury on the victim. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The sentence (3 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992). In a case where it is reasonable to deem that the act of the perpetrator was committed with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed against the victim by attacking the victim, the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a act of self-defense or excessive

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.