A. The defendant (the factual error or misunderstanding of legal principles)'s threat of the victim's chest by hand to stop the victim's act is a justifiable act that constitutes a justifiable act. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Prosecutor (1) 15 seconds where the Defendant and the victim got out of the CCTV photographing range appears to be sufficient time for the Defendant to inflict injury on the victim; the victim was inside the G Hospital emergency room and made a statement to the effect that it was in line with the background leading up to the injury of the victim; even if the Defendant and the victim were in fighting, the crime of injury was established due to the Defendant’s act even if the victim was in line with the victim’s body, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of the facts.

(2) In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a certain act against the Defendant’s assertion is justified as an act that does not contravene the social norms, and the illegality is excluded, must be determined individually by considering the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the second act, and the third.