A. misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion, or misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant did not resist passively to escape from the victim's attack, but did not commit an attack to the victim's chest because he did not constitute legitimate self-defense or legitimate act. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished as a drunk driving of an unreasonable sentencing, and that it is not visible to repent by denying the crime of bodily harm caused by violence, etc., the lower court’s punishment (one year of a suspended sentence of six months imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant's act of attack was committed by passive resistance to defend the victim's act of attack, in light of the circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the defendant, victim, witness's statement, etc.

B. 1) The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, has the inherent area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).