A. The Defendant was guilty of a special injury on the part of the Defendant, even though he did not have any intention to inflict any injury upon the victim E by shampoo and shamper Byung.

The first instance court cited the fact.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant placed shampoo and shampoo Byung in order to oppose the victim’s assault; and (b) the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act or an emergency escape.

(c)

The punishment of the first deliberation (eight months of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, in the situation where physical fighting with the attachment of vision between Defendant’s daily activity and other daily activity, even if the Defendant did not clearly recognize what person is the subject of the attack, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, even if he did not clearly recognize the subject of the attack, was at least by specifying the subject of the victim E as the victim E, and was arrested at the victim’s daily activity, and there was an error in the so-called sash.

Even if the legal doctrine that does not interfere with the intention of the actor (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do2813, Jan. 24, 1984) is applied, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had an intentional special injury to the victim.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, generally, the act of attack and defense was committed between the persons who conducted the same fighting and the act of defense was committed, and the act of defense was also in the nature of both areas, which are the act of attack. Thus, barring special circumstances, either party’s act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act to defend against fishing, and there is little room for A to establish an emergency evacuation.

In this case, the circumstances and intention of the defendant before and after the act of the other party of this case are examined.