A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, inflicted an injury on the victim, such as satise of satise of satise, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and there was no intention to do so, even if so.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense at night, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail, i.e., the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion. In comparison with the aforementioned judgment of the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable and acceptable, and there was no error by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against it, the perpetrator’s act of attack is an act of attack at the same time, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act of attacking a political party or excessive defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act provides that “In the case of the preceding paragraph, the act falls under an excessive defense act as provided in Article 21(2) of the Criminal Act.”