A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, and even if a domestic violence occurred, it constitutes legitimate self-defense to defend the current infringement of his body.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. An ordinary act of attack and a defense is conducted throughout the course of an attack and defense between the persons of a fighting match in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, and at the same time, the act of attack and defense is in the nature of a two-area, which is the act of attack. Thus, even if the parties appear to be fighting, the act of a party cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense, barring special circumstances, such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and to escape therefrom.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do13927 Decided December 8, 2011). (B)

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it is reasonable to find that the court below recognized that the defendant has inflicted an injury such as the facts charged to the victim A and I.

(1) At the time, J, K, and L testified in the court of original instance on the situation where the Defendant and the victims physically conflict. Each of the above testimony was made around August 29, 2012, around one year and two months after August 29, 2012, the date and time indicated in the facts charged.

However, we examine the testimony of J in the original trial.