The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, there is no fact that the Defendant, like mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, either saw the victim into his hand floor or her head knife and caused the victim to face with trees.

Even if the defendant exercised the force of force against the victim, this constitutes self-defense, since the victim first committed an act of violence with flabbbling and unflabing the left hand of the defendant, and the act of defense was done in the process of opposing it.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment of conviction against the defendant by misunderstanding facts or understanding legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted an injury by assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, and since the defendant's act cannot be deemed as self-defense, the court below's finding guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The victim made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case to the effect that “the defendant, who was seated at bench, was fenched at the investigative agency, was fenched by drinking, was taken by hand,” and that “the head was teared by drinking, and the head was fenched by drinking,” and that “the head was fenched by drinking,” which corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case. 2) The victim reported the assault by phone call 112 immediately after the victim was assaulted by the defendant, and stated the fact of damage to the police officer dispatched.