Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant demanded the victim's vehicle parked in front of his oral leave to deduct the vehicle by telephone, and the defendant stated that "When the victim deducts the victim's vehicle from his house, the defendant " how the defendant gets off his house and gets off his match." The defendant who was the victim in front of her house was pushed ahead of her arm's length, was pushed back by actively booming the victim's breath and sponsing the victim's breath, and the fact that the victim got into the above breath with the defendant.

In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant exercised the force of force against the victim. Furthermore, such an act goes beyond the passive act of defense to prevent the victim from exceeding the victim’s attack merely or entering the place where the victim came into the place under the circumstances at the time of motive or time, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense or legitimate act, and therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.