The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in this case, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts, or by knee and knee, did not fat the victim’s face and chest. However, the Defendant’s act constitutes a defense act to escape from an unlawful assault by the victim, and thus, constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 26, 2015, the Defendant, at around 13:00 on May 26, 2015, suffered injury to the victim, such as catum fare, and knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee knee kne.

2) In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act of attacked with one another, and the attacked against it, it cannot be deemed an act of defense by a political party since it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). In light of the above legal principles, the health stand in this case as to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim consistently assessed the Defendant into drinking and kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kn, while

At that time, E and K told the Defendant and reported to 112.

At the time, memory was lost.