Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's act constitutes self-defense, excessive defense, or legitimate act.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of legal principles, the defendant can recognize the facts of assaulting the victim D as stated in the facts charged in this case. In full view of the circumstances of this case acknowledged by the above evidence, the form and degree of assault by the defendant, etc., the defendant's act of assaulting the victim D cannot be deemed as an act or excessive self-defense as an act to defend the current infringement of his or others' legal interests, and it cannot be deemed as an act or excessive defense, and it cannot be deemed as a legitimate act, as it does not violate the law or other social norms. Thus, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is without

In full view of the fact that the victim wants to punish the defendant (44 pages of the trial record), the fact that there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the court below’s punishment is too unlimited and it is not recognized that the defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is unreasonable. Therefore, the defendant’s

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 191 (1) and 190 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(C) Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure of the lower judgment is clear that the “C organization” of the first instance judgment is a clerical error of the “I organization”.