A. Since the Defendant did not actively assault the victim as stated in the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The Defendant’s act of self-defense or legitimate act was an act of violence from the victim and was only passively set up against the victim. Thus, such act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate self-defense or social norms.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the CCTV video taken at the time of the instant case’s determination of mistake of facts, the facts charged of the instant case are sufficiently recognized, since the Defendant, such as the victim’s statement, destroyed the victim by breaking the breath and spathing the breath, thereby causing bodily injury. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the CCTV video as to the assertion of self-defense or a legitimate act, the fact that the victim first saw the Defendant’s breath, frightened the Defendant’s bat, batd the Defendant’s bat, and fatd the Defendant’s bat, which prevents the Defendant’s bat, or batd the Defendant’s body in a state where the victim lost balance, or fatd the

However, at the time of the instant case, the victim was 74 years old, while the Defendant was 46 years old, the Defendant, who was less than 28 years old, was immediately forced the victim to control his attitude, and committed the same act as the facts charged, and such behavior continued for about 30 years even when the Defendant was unable to attack the Defendant more.

Therefore, in light of the circumstances or the situation at the time of the instant act, the Defendant’s act is an active attack that deviates from the scope recognized by social norms to defend against unjust infringement on his body.