The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process, the Defendant was assaulted by the victim who frightened with each other due to the problem of the alcohol value with the victim, and was in excess of the main floor of the instant case. During this process, the Defendant was not in his arms in order to prevent the victim from committing further attack and to mislead the victim, and there was no fact that the victim was forcibly frighted to the extent that the victim died. Therefore, the Defendant’s above act does not constitute assault.

Even if the above act of the defendant constitutes violence, there is no proximate causal relation between the defendant's act and the victim's death, and there is no possibility that the defendant could have predicted the result of the death.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (related to self-defense or excessive defense) and further, even if the defendant's strokeedly caused the death of the victim by his/her arms, this constitutes a passive defensive act to protect the life and body of the defendant by preventing the defendant from continuing assault by the victim against him/her, which constitutes self-defense under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act or an excessive defense under Article 21(3) of the same Act, and thus

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the mistake of facts or self-defense or excessive defense, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion that the Defendant’s act does not constitute an assault, “Assault under the Criminal Act” refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person’s body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991).