The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Legal principles: The part of the defendant's display of protruding cane for mountain use to the victim is not illegal as self-defense.

Error of mistake: The defendant does not have any fact that he has lost the victim.

Unfair sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the legal principles and the circumstances leading up to and the means of fighting between the defendant and the victim, the act of satisfying the victim in a series of mutual fights, such as the judgment of misunderstanding of legal principles and the mistake of facts, caused the other party to commit acts of violence, and thus, the act does not constitute self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do2945, Sept. 6, 1996). In light of the situation and the means of fighting between the defendant and the victim, the act of satisfying the victim in a series of mutual satfy

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of self-defense is without merit.

In full view of the evidence (the victim's testimony, E's statement, testimony, and diagnosis) duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant is recognized to have kneeeeing the victim's left side in the course of fighting with the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

The sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and it is a discretionary judgment that takes place within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors on the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of sentencing review of the first instance court and the sentencing guidelines.