A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

A. In order to drive away from the house the victim who threatens the Defendant, the Defendant citing a fluorial rank and fluoral with the victim and fluoral with the victim.

In the process, the main disease was faced with walls, and the defendant is not shouldered with the main disease.

In addition, the defendant did not want to conflict with the victim, and did not stick the victim's hand to the victim's left hand, but did not stick to the victim's hand.

Therefore, there is no intention of special injury to the defendant, and the defendant merely caused an injury to the victim by negligence.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant shouldered the victim's left hand by shouldering the victim's disease as stated in the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense inasmuch as the victim’s act was flickly flicked in the process of setting up against the victim’s left hand during the process of protesting against the victim’s boom and attacking the victim first.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles.

C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, according to the evidence in the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant had the negligence of injury on the part of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant was suffering from the injury by shouldering the disease, and that the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the defendant could suffer from the injury as long as the defendant was not a part of the main disease, as argued by the defendant, as long as the defendant was not a part of the main disease, the defendant could have taken the part of the main disease.

However, it is recognized by the evidence duly examined by the court below and the trial court.