The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, received an unfair attack from the victim, and flobbbling the victim to defend it, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

The sentence of the court below's decision on unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows: (i) the victim C had posted a leaflet from the investigative agency to the G in the south-gu, Dongnam-gu, 2013 to the lower court court’s judgment; (ii) consistently stated that “the Defendant had flicked in the flick-gu, Donnam-gu, Seoul,” and consistently made a statement to the effect that “The Defendant had flicked in the flick-gu, Donnam-gu, e.g., the Defendant’s flick-gu,” and (iii) made a reliable statement; and (iv) the witness H also tried to flick the sound of the flick-gu at the time of the instant case; and (d) at the time the Defendant had expressed that “I flick-gu, flick-gu, flick-gu, e.g., the Defendant did not have any flick-gu flick.”

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated to the purport, ③ in a dispute between the Defendant and the victim on the following day, the Defendant’s act is not passively defensive during a unilateral attack from the victim, but at the same time during a attack with the victim, the victim’s breath as an attack. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The defendant's decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing is on the cancellation of the designation of the F Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project Zone in Gangnam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul.