A. The defendant of mistake of facts did not inflict an injury on the victim's head due to a minor's illness.

B. Although the misapprehension of the legal principle recognizes the fact that the defendant gets off the victim's head due to the victim's illness, it constitutes self-defense to protect the victim's body's unfair infringement.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, since the defendant's act constitutes an active attack beyond the scope recognized by social norms for the purpose of defending unfair infringement on his body, and thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense. The judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justified, and there is no error of misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. Although the defendant agreed voluntarily with the victim in an investigative agency to decide on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant has a history of punishment such as the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for the same crime, the crime of this case is deemed to inflict an injury on the victim's head due to the minor illness, which is dangerous to the defendant, and the nature and circumstances of the crime, and the fact that the defendant did not seriously reflect his/her mistake, and others.