A. There was no mistake of facts that the victim C had inflicted an injury by breaking a balp.

B. Although there was a fact that the Defendant’s act constitutes a self-defense or a legitimate act because the Defendant’s act constitutes a self-defense that the said victim attempted to restrain by assaulting the Defendant’s her mother that the said victim satisfed.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the circumstance acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the victim C, who was in a relatively objective position between the Defendant and the victims, began to dispute between the investigation agency and the victims to prevent the Defendant from doing work; and (c) the Defendant and the victim stated to the effect that they were able to see each other; (b) the Defendant and the victim C were tight and lick; and (c) the Defendant and the victims stated to the effect that they were able to see each other; and (c) the Defendant was able to see the victim C’s flobbbing and harming the victim’s floth as stated in the facts charged.

The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the victim C voluntarily extracted his/her own trees from the Defendant, and resisting the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant’s timber.