A. In the course of being pushed ahead of the victim's assault to avoid assault, the defendant is forced to contact the victim's face so that the victim's face can be avoided from the victim's entrance, and the victim's strokes with each other in the process of defending the victim's strokes, and there is no intention to injure the victim, nor did the victim inflict an injury on the victim by strokeing the victim with the intent to inflict an injury.

Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant’s act by misunderstanding the legal doctrine constitutes a legitimate defense to defend the victim’s unlawful attack, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the defense of a political party, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the penalty amounting to KRW 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the first instance trial of the judgment on the assertion of facts reveal credibility, i.e., ① the testimony of a person who has observed or experienced the scene of the crime cannot be rejected without any reasonable ground. As the injured party C is starting from the police investigation stage to the first instance trial of the first instance when he first used violence, such as using his flab, etc., such as using his flab, and the Defendant’s flab, and the statement was consistently and specifically made to the effect that “the Defendant was flabed by his flab,” and “the Defendant was flad with his kne, walking down with his flab,” and there are no other reasonable grounds to reject the credibility of the statement, ② the victim was the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion and the part of the injury diagnosis report submitted to the investigation agency, the part of the injury, the part of the injury, the degree and photograph, etc., correspond to the criminal facts (the defendant's occurrence date of the case is somewhat different from the date of issuance of the injury diagnosis report).