A. The Defendant did not take part in the victim’s face at multiple times or the victim’s chest.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (political defense, legitimate act) Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act, as it was merely a defense act to escape from the victim’s attack.

(c)

Sentencing is not an unfair sentencing case.

Even if the court below's sentence (2 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged that the above facts were the same as the alleged facts in the court below's determination, and the court below rejected the above assertion in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below. Thus, the court below's determination is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the defense of a political party and the assertion of a justifiable act, namely, “each other’s statement and who is a witness F,” did not unilaterally take place. During that process, the Defendant was headed in the door frame, and the victim was the victim exceeded the floor.

In light of the statements made by Defendant Appellant at the police station and the developments leading up to the instant fighting and the degree of injury inflicted on the victim, etc., the Defendant’s use of the victim’s bridge did not constitute a considerable act to avoid unjust infringement on the victim, or a defense act that does not violate social norms, such as a reasonable act to allow the victim’s use of the bridge, or a defense act that does not violate social norms.

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

(c).