The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s assault committed on November 27, 2018, which was committed on November 29, 2018, did not contain any frighten of the victim’s chest, and the victim committed violence against the Defendant after the victim cut a banner, thereby provokinging the Defendant’s safety. The victim used the assault against the Defendant, which goes beyond the minimum passive defense act, and caused the victim not to escape because the victim attempted to flee. As such, this is a “Arrest of flagrant offender” as stipulated in Article 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, illegality is dismissed. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) In so doing, the Defendant’s frightening of the victim’s bat constitutes self-defense, and thus, the Defendant’s frighting of the victim’s bat constitutes self-defense as it did not go beyond the extent of self-defense.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

3) Since the victim knew that interference with business affairs and non-compliance with evictions were being removed and kept by the Defendant, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with business affairs, and thus, the act as stated in the facts charged constitutes a passive act between five minutes and thus constitutes a justifiable act. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. (b) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months is too excessive).