A. The defendant cannot be found to have committed mistake of facts against the victim's face.

B. The Defendant, in light of the legal principles, suffered damages, such as booming the victim’s satis and satising the satis, etc., by taking the victim beyond the victim’s assault first, and was able to take the victim’s face in the process of satising the satisfed fish, and thus, constitutes self-defense.

C. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he/she has taken the face of the victim by drinking. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In order to recognize a certain act as self-defense by misapprehending the legal doctrine’s assertion, the act must be reasonable as it is to protect the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest.

(1) In light of the following circumstances, it is recognized that the victim committed an unlawful harmful act, such as assaulting and breaking the defendant first, by taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4735, Apr. 27, 2006). Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On June 12, 2014, the Defendant was diagnosed by the National Medical Center and the FF for about 14 days, which requires medical treatment from the National Medical Center and the F. On June 17, 2014, the Defendant was found to have received an estimate on the manufacturing cost of the ambrecination from G of the National Medical Center on June 17, 2014, but it was recognized that the Defendant received an estimate on the manufacturing cost of the ambrecination from G of the National Medical Center, which was assaulted against another person on April 4, 2014.

“The” was mainly drafted on the basis of the Defendant’s statement, and was about two months after the date of occurrence of the case, from the police.