The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The defendant who misleads the victim of the fact that he/she had been sealed with the victim by hand, but there is no intention in assaulting the victim by intention.

2) The act written in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

3) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. 1) The evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and in particular, according to the photograph taken by the police officer (the page of the investigation record) immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact of assaulting the victim at one time in his/her right knife with his/her hand while driving with the victim.

2) According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant appears to have abused the victim by contingency while having been in a dispute with the victimized person.

In such a case, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of attack against the victim at the same time, which constitutes an act of attacking the victim’s act, and cannot be deemed an act of attacking only by the Defendant’s act. Thus, it does not constitute a legitimate defense or a justifiable act under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1329, Aug. 24, 1993, etc.). In addition, the Defendant’s act stated in the facts charged in the instant case by the Defendant does not appear to be reasonable means or method in light

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3) The lower court sentenced a fine of KRW 500,000 to the Defendant, taking into account the unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances.

In full view of the facts constituting the conditions for sentencing in this Court, in particular the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant crime and the subsequent circumstances and the applicable sentences, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

It is recognized that it is unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is.