The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and the Defendant’s act of political party are limited to those where the victim was unable to flee and demanded to cut off the vehicle, and there was no fact that the breath was used to salute or salute salke belts after cutting down or cutting down the balp, and thereby causing an injury.

The injury of household affairs was inflicted;

Even if it is passive to prevent the escape of the victim, it is a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the factual misunderstanding and the assertion of a justifiable act, the Defendant was merely passively attached to the victim’s chest, as set out in the lower court, by putting the victim’s chest clothes, or putting the parts of the belt (the lower court simply attached them).

It is difficult to see that the Defendant’s act satisfies the requirements for justifiable acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act in light of the legitimacy of the purpose, the means and method of use, and the supplement thereof, etc. in light of the background of the crime, the attitude of the act, the degree of the exercise of tangible force, etc.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the unfair assertion of sentencing, the Defendant first takes into account the fact that the Defendant started his body fighting with his left arms and started, and the fact that the Defendant continued to put the victim into his body even though the victim demanded to have been left.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, form of the act, degree of violence, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all the conditions of the punishment shown in the pleading, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015).