The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any fact that the victim caused buckbucks three times, and recognized the fact that the victim was pushed the victim with a huck, but this constitutes self-defense, since the victim spucked first, and the victim spucked into self-defense.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, although there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. The determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances should not be made without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Moreover, for a certain act to be recognized as legitimate self-defense, the act must be reasonable as it is for the purpose of defending the current unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interests. Therefore, it is not recognized as legitimate self-defense against unlawful infringement, and whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court also claims the same purport as the grounds for appeal.