A. misunderstanding the legal doctrine, the Defendant merely left a bank in order for the victimized person to take away the Defendant’s bank and not return it, and constitutes a party’s act or a party’s defense.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that "the defendant's act constitutes an attack as an active attack beyond the limit of passive defense, has the nature of the means and methods of the act, lack of reasonableness of the means and methods, and lack of balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, and thus does not constitute a legitimate act and a legitimate defense."

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant who has no record of criminal punishment against the defendant, or the fact that the defendant did not receive a letter of suspicion from the injured party, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is judged appropriate and is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, and thus, the defendant's wrongful assertion of sentencing is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.