A. It was unilaterally assaulted from misunderstanding of facts D, and there was no assault or injury as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. Although the exercise of tangible power against D is recognized by the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, since it was generated in the course of resisting the other party’s violence.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by taking account of the victim D, witness F’s statements and CCTV images, etc.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court and the trial in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In a case where the perpetrator’s act of determining the misapprehension of the legal principle is not for the purpose of defending the victim’s unfair attack, but for the purpose of defending the victim’s wrongful attack, and it appears that the perpetrator first received the attack and went against it, the harmful act is deemed to have the nature of the attack at the same time as the defensive act, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense or excessive defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). In light of CCTV images taken by the situation at the time of the instant case, it is confirmed that D, first of all, she was found that D, by actively setting up the Defendant and the Defendant, who is a fluor of drinking, she was fluordding with each other by actively setting up a hemothic and she was fluoring the hemothic, and that D, after the fighting was interrupted due to the power of people in the surrounding areas, she she was fluored first with D, and she again she

In addition, the defendant and the victim have caused fighting and before and after fighting.