A. In order to prevent an attack by the victim at the time, the Defendant: (a) committed mistake of facts; and (b) committed an attack against the victim’s left hand; and (c) did not remove the victim’s head head as stated in the instant facts charged.

The main part of the victim's head is that the victim attempted the so-called "daylight" toward the defendant and went beyond the ground, and the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the victim's above standing is not recognized.

B. In light of the circumstances at the time of the display of each item, each item of this case cannot be evaluated as “hazardous objects” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Exposure Act”).

Therefore, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of inflicting an injury on the victim by using the above items at the time constitutes a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in interpreting and applying “hazardous goods

B. At the time of Sheshed, the Defendant was off from the assault committed against the victim’s son, and the victim was out of the assault committed against the victim, and the victim tried to carry the so-called “day-to-day” with the victim’s own self-defense, which constitutes excessive self-defense or excessive defense.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected Defendant’s defense assertion and omitted judgment on excessive defense assertion.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The judgment of the court below also made the same assertion as the above grounds for appeal, and the court below against this assertion is against the victim's shoulder under the items of the defendant.