A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not flick the victim’s breath and flick the victim’s breath, but was flick with the Defendant while the victim blicked.

B. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, committed an inevitable assault against the victim to defend the victim by force, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense.

(c)

At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, had weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

(d)

The punishment of the lower court (five million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on factual mistake, the fact that the Defendant, while fighting with the victim at the time of the instant case, got the victim into the floor by pushing the victim, and thereby, sustained the victim’s face and kneeeel in the face and knee.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim, as alleged by the Defendant, she first saw the Defendant as a vision and flaps of the Defendant.

However, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of flabing the victim's flab, etc. against him, was an attacked with one another's intent rather than an attacking the victim's unfair attack. In the case of fighting, the act of flabing at the same time has the nature of an attack, which is a defense act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or excessive defense act (see Supreme Court Decisions 71Do527, Apr. 30, 197; 92Do1329, Aug. 24, 1993, etc.). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(c)

The record on the argument of mental and physical weakness is examined.