The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below: (a) threatened the victim with "to die" by putting the knife of the defendant's knife with the defendant's knife on the day of the case; (b) then concealed the knife in the direction of the stairs where the knife knife knife knife with the defendant's knife knife with the second floor; (c) the victim knifeed the victim's life or body with the knife with the knife; (d) the victim knifeed the victim's knife with the victim's knife with the victim's head and face; (d) the defendant lost the victim's knife and knife the victim's knife with the victim's knife with the victim's knife's knife; and (d) made the defendant's knife.

In full view of the following: “The Defendant’s murdering act goes beyond the limit of the victim’s act of protecting himself/herself and his/her children, and it cannot be deemed as an act with considerable social norms, and it cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense, and it cannot be deemed as an act with excessive defense due to rashing or confusion in fear at night or under other extraordinary circumstances.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the legitimate defense or excessive defense under the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the defendant's act is punished by violence, etc.