Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in light of the following: the victim and witness's specific and consistent statement, the contents of the victim's treatment, the fact that the defendant at least once contacted the victim's threshold, and the circumstances leading to the dispute.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim asked the defendant not to have been punished by the victim several times immediately after the crime of this case, but the defendant did not forcibly deny it; and (ii) the victim stated a false fact and appears to have no motive to mislead the defendant, the fact that the defendant abused the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case is sufficiently recognized.

Furthermore, in light of the background and degree of the instant assault and the overall circumstances at the time of the instant case, it is difficult to deem that the said Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act as a passive resistance to defend himself.

In the same purport, the lower court’s determination that rejected Defendant’s assertion and found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable.