The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim E discontinued treatment against the patient’s will, which is the family member of the patient, and forced the patient to discharge the patient, and thus, the victim’s arms were brought in from the sick room to restrain it. Thus, the defendant’s act constitutes self-defense and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

2. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense;

(2) In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Defendant’s wife was first written on August 24, 2012, and was escorted to the D Hospital by the 119 emergency squad; and (b) the Defendant refused to prepare a written consent after hearing the above hospital’s statement that the patient should not prepare a written consent from the hospital at the time of Saturdays; (c) the victim, a major of the above hospital, tried to explain the Defendant’s qualifications, etc., but the Defendant tried to explain the result of the MRI examination to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant, upon reporting the Defendant to the police and demanding the Defendant to return to the said hospital, failed to obtain the consent from the police officer to return to the hospital; and (e) the Defendant did not request the victim to return to the hospital; and (e) the Defendant did not request the victim to return to the hospital.