A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not take the victim’s desire or twice, or did not take the victim’s breath in the course of being assaulted by the victim, and only once, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same contents as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment. Accordingly, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court under the title “determination on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion,” the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant expressed her desire to commit an attack to the victim and her boomed twice. The Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, since it is not merely passive defense against the victim’s attack, but also has the nature of active act of attack, and thus rejected the Defendant’s above assertion. 2) Where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of the relevant legal doctrine was sent to one another with the intent of attack rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, it cannot be deemed as an act of attack and excessive defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2820, Mar. 28, 2000).