The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The place where a mistake of fact-finding defendant inflicted an injury on victim E is not inside D but outside D.

B. At the time of self-defense, the Defendant committed an injury to the victims and committed an assault against the victims, which constitutes self-defense, and thus constitutes excessive defense even if it does not constitute self-defense.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had taken the victim E face one time by drinking the victim E within D at the time, and caused the victim to have taken the victim's loss. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. In order to establish self-defense as to the assertion of self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, by comprehensively taking into account various specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the act of the perpetrator was committed first, rather than to defend the victim's unfair attack, and the act of the perpetrator was committed with an intent of attack, and went against it, it cannot be deemed an act of self-defense or excessive defense, since the act of self-defense has the nature of the act of attack at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200); in light of the attitude of the act of the crime of this case and the degree of damage to the victims, etc., even if the defendant alleged in the facts charged against the defendant, as alleged by the victim.