A. In light of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

1) The Defendant did not have any intention to injure.

The defendant tried to make a grass beer work on the same day and go to the end of the mountain, and this case has occurred in a contingent manner with the victim.

It is not consistent with the victim's statement about which part of the defendant's compensation has been calculated.

If the defendant uses planned improvement and tried to inflict an injury on the victim, it is common sense that the defendant's price is calculated with the knife part of the improvement.

However, it is not that the defendant's pricing of the part undermining was intended to inflict injury on the injured party, but that the damaged part by negligence in the course of dispute with the injured party was or faced with the damaged part.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes an element of special injury, such act constitutes legitimate defense, and thus, is not unlawful.

The victim, compared to the defendant, was young and difficult, and if the victim tried to get out of the defendant by using a tree 30 cm tree picker, the victim was forced to defend against this from the defendant's standpoint.

When considering these specific circumstances, there are considerable reasons for the defendant's act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds.

A) It is recognized based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s assertion of intentional denial.