A. The Defendant did not inflict injury on the victim due to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by breathing the balth of the victim, and even if the Defendant was physically fighting with the victim, and the victim was injured by this, the Defendant’s physical fighting in order to prevent the injury, which constitutes legitimate act of self-defense or legitimate act. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (such as a fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim found the victim's house in order to comply with the defendant's house on the ground that the defendant's house was auctioned by the investigation agency from the court below to the court below's trial court, and made a dispute with the victim on the rooftop, and made a detailed and consistent statement on the motive, circumstance, and progress of the crime of this case, which can be reliable. The defendant also stated to the effect that the police carried the victim's chest by hand before the victim was assaulted by the victim, and was sealed by the victim's injury diagnosis document (the investigation record 31 pages) prepared by the doctor F, and there is no special circumstance to suspect credibility in the process of issuing the victim's check of injury to the victim prepared by the doctor F, and considering the fact that the part and degree of the injury alleged by the victim correspond to the causes and circumstances of the injury.