The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) does not have a duty of care to prevent injury because the loss of a victim who seeks to illegally intrude his/her office is anticipated to be through the literature, and in fact, the victim did not have been injured at the time of the appeal.

In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act committed in the course of preventing the victim's illegal intrusion of residence or assault.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and examined the evidence, namely, ① the victim complained of the pain immediately after the instant case, and reported to 112, and the investigative agency and the lower court consistently and consistently with the first instance court’s trial, stated that “the Defendant was suffering from the wound and the fingers of the Defendant’s house while entering the office; ② the first instance court and the first instance court’s review on each of the facts against H hospitals at G University H Hospital, the victim was diagnosed and treated on the left side of the hospital by visiting the hospital on the day of the instant case. At the time of the emergency room, the victim was diagnosed and treated on the left side of the hospital at the time of the emergency room.

(3) The defendant also stated in the investigative agency that "at the time she was pushed down with the door, and the victim was her grandchildren."

In doing so, the Court stated that the Defendant and the victim were physically fightingd, and that the Defendant and the victim were physically fightingd, and that the Defendant and the victim were knifeed at the time, etc. even according to the I’s legal statement (Evidence No. 141, 142 pages), the F also stated in the investigative agency and the court of original instance that “the Defendant and the victim were physically fightingd at the time, and the victim’s left hand was knifed.”

It is recognized that the situation at issue was recognized, 6. The board of directors became the issue of the acquisition of the D’s shares on the day of this case, and thereafter the victim of private death and L are the accused.