2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court of the original judgment by lawfully adopting and examining the evidence, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of assaulting D as stated in the judgment below. Such an act of the defendant is merely a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, since it is merely an act of preventing and filing a motion against disturbance as the chairperson of the door.

The act of self-defense cannot be deemed as self-defense in order to defend an unfair infringement against the obstruction of business by the members.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① As the Defendant was consistently demanded from an investigative agency to present a written agreement on the lawsuit between the literature and the lower court, D made a statement to the effect that he saw the head and chest of D, and saw him as drinking first, and saw him into flab, and flab.

② G at the same time stated to the effect that the Defendant and D are divided into several Romans, and that the Defendant first placed D’s trees on a strokes, and again put D’s trees on a strokes, and that D’s drinking was displayed on D. Accordingly, it conforms to the above D’s statement.

③ The above G made a statement that the situation at the time when D had been in the office of work in the door had a little strong voice to talk about G and H’s complaint, but it did not come to a ney, and that H was in the same site as G did not have any fact about the failure of D’s complaint.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.