A. In fact, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the victim was sealed or assaulted outside the PC room.

It is only true that the victim could not enter the defendant in the situation of entering the PC room, and as such, the victim seems to have entered the PC room only.

B. Legal principles are merely to show the other party to prevent the victim from illegally impairing the PC, and thus, it does not constitute a crime by constituting a legitimate defense.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) according to the victim’s statement, etc., the Defendant appears to have been out of the PC entrance to the victim’s body; (ii) the victim D was at the court of first instance to “the Defendant was injured by the Defendant’s physical size outside the PC entrance several times and by facing the wall,” and “the recording of the recorded situation at the time was recorded, the Defendant got out of the PC door.”

Hoba Meba

In light of the fact that the body of the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant was faced with a wound by being pushed off with the body of the Defendant,” consistent with the statement made by the investigative agency in the main part, and that the part that the victim sustained as a result of the Defendant’s act is consistent with the criminal facts in light of the fact that the part that the Defendant sustained as a result of the Defendant’s act is consistent with the name of the sick in the written diagnosis of injury, the part and degree of the injury, and the photograph of the part that the victim suffered as a result of the Defendant’s act, which was submitted to the investigative agency, the Defendant committed an

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts.

B. The first instance judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is duly adopted and investigated.