A. The punishment should be mitigated or exempted because the misapprehension of legal principles or mistake of facts or the defendant's act constitutes an unlawful or excessive defense.

In other words, prior to the crime of this case, since any person runs away with the defendant's bank and immediately after the crime of this case, E, the victim, had access to the defendant, the defendant committed assault and assaulting that the victim has stolen the bank or attempted to harm the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the misapprehension of the legal principle or the record of the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that a man who was divingd on the road by the victim E was locked prior to the locking of the defendant, and after being locked by the defendant, the fact that he was boarding or leaving the vehicle can be recognized.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized:

(1) The injured party has broken down his locked on the way by the defendant.

② The Defendant began to assault a shoulderer victim in diving.

(3) Even though the victim escaped, the defendant continued to run away, and went beyond the care when drinking, and when the victim's bridge and head was found to be plastic in front of the convenience point.

④ Even though the victim was evacuated with the defendant as the convenience store, but went away with the wheels of the convenience store, the defendant continued to follow and assault the victim.

In full view of the above circumstances and the situation before and after the instant crime, and the method, duration, and degree of the Defendant’s assault, even if there was a third party’s tort, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as going beyond the limit of defense to protect himself from such tort, and therefore, such defense cannot be accepted by social norms.