The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts is merely the victim's mother and child part after the victim made a half-yearly and verbal abuse, and the victim's mother and child part has been pushed down or pushed down at the end of the hand floor, and there is no other fact about the victim's head or harming the victim as in the facts charged.

Rather, the Defendant was subject to assault from the victim to the elbow part of his arms.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of probation, and 40 hours of order to attend a course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the victim guilty of the charges based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, such as the protocol of suspect interrogation of the police against the victim, the victim’s written statements, and CCTV images.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's assertion of fact is without merit.

(On the other hand, even if there is an argument that the illegality of the defendant's defense constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act because the defendant was subject to violence from the victim's victim's defense, according to the evidence above, even though the victim was pushed the defendant's body-centered, it is recognized that the situation occurred after the defendant's assault as stated in the facts charged was completed. Thus, the defendant's assertion does not constitute legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing, has a unique area of the first instance as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23. 7.