The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (self-defense as to the injury caused by violence) the Defendant was in conflict with D and E, D’s dynamic L, when the Defendant was blicked, when the Defendant was blicked, Ldo cane with L, and the victim was flicked with the Defendant, and the victim was flicked with the Defendant, and the victim was flicked with the Defendant, and the victim was flicked with the Defendant, so even if the victim was flick away from the cement way under two meters, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant's wrong and reflects the defendant's wrong, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency under the influence of nitation, agreed with the victim E, the defendant's difficult family environment, and the alcohol addiction, but is going to go beyond the future, etc., the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s act did not constitute self-defense on the ground that (i) while the Defendant and D were in conflict with each other, the Defendant expressed his/her motive part to D several times; (ii) the Defendant was faced with the victim due to his/her own desire, and thus, the Defendant fell away from the cement way that the victim was under approximately two meters; (ii) at the time, D was under the inconvenience of bridge; (iii) the victim was the aged aged 66 years (1947 life); and (iv) the Defendant was asserting that he/she was facing L; (iv) according to the suspect and the victim’s photograph (160, 161 of the Investigation Records), the Defendant’s act did not constitute self-defense.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, L at the time of the victim and the victim, are the victim.