A. (1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it constituted self-defense or legitimate act, on the contrary, did not actively attack the victim’s face in order to avoid the head of the victim’s hair.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for April suspension, the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Even after closely examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the circumstance where the victim acted as a threat to the need to defend the Defendant is not found, and the fact that the Defendant actively assaulted the victim is acknowledged. Therefore, there is no room for the Defendant’s act to constitute self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. In full view of the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times as violent crimes, the fact that the Defendant did not reflect his fault up to the trial, and rather filed a complaint against the victim, etc., the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances and assault is relatively minor; circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the elderly, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime; circumstances leading to the Defendant’s personality and conduct, and all the conditions of the sentencing and arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s character and conduct, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too heavy or less, and appropriate.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and each of them is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so ordered as per Disposition.