A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant is a senior citizen aged 77 years old, who is the victim and the victim of the horse fighting with a more physical strength than that of the victim and the victim of the excessive felb, so the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense, since the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense, since it was feld against a strong fear and led to the crime of this case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine: 1) To recognize a legitimate defense as a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement, etc. In addition, the act of defense as a requirement for the establishment of a political party defense includes not only pure passive defense, but also anti-defense types, including active anti-defense; however, the act of defense must be an act to defend one’s own or another’s infringement of legal interest (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2534, Jun. 14, 2007; 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992); and in light of the fact that the court below duly adopted and investigated by the evidence and the fact that the act of defense constituted an act of attack beyond the victim’s intent and the act of attack beyond the bounds of the aforementioned legal doctrine, and thus, it cannot be seen as an act of attack by the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

A) Prior to the instant crime, the victim demanded the Defendant to pay money to the Defendant for travel.