The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The injury inflicted by mistake of fact is not caused by the Defendant’s assault.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act of self-defense or legitimate, since the victim, who was in dispute, attempted to intrude the Defendant’s residence and was only sealed once by a pipe to defend the victim’s chest.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, four years of probation, probation, and community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: "D has the same assertion as the reasons for appeal in this part, consistent from the investigative agency to this court, and consistently stated that the defendant suffered injury to the left part by selling D with a pipe, and its statement is very specific, and the defendant's assertion is not inconsistent with other evidence, such as the injury diagnosis document (it was issued on the date of the occurrence of this case) stating that the above hack pipe is "an presumption that it is suitable for the deposited material" where the hack pipe was recorded at the time, and it is not inconsistent with other evidence, and it is recognized that the above statement is credibility because it does not have any other circumstance to open the above statement." If we examine the above judgment of the court below in a consistent manner with the record and closely, it is justified in the judgment of the court below that the victim suffered injury due to the defendant's act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts alleged by the defendant, and thus, the defendant's assertion in this part of this part is rejected.

B. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court based on the witness D and E’s statutory statement, video images stored in the USB, etc.