A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was merely the victim’s hummatic and response thereto.

The act of a defendant constitutes legitimate defense.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the evidence duly admitted as to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant appears to continuously send the text messages written in the facts charged to the victim several times, and there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion.

Even if the injured person, like the defendant's assertion, expressed a desire for the defendant, the defendant's act satisfies the requirement of defense of a political party in light of the circumstances, method, and degree of the crime in this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion of law.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant are considered as grounds of appeal.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.