The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s crime of this case by misapprehending the legal principles constitutes self-defense or an emergency evacuation, and thus, the illegality is excluded, and not so.

Even if it comes to excessive defense or excessive escape, punishment should be reduced or exempted.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder due to depression at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine’s assertion 1) Determination of the assertion that an act is self-defense or excessive defense is to be recognized as self-defense, and there must be considerable feasibility as it is to defend against the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Therefore, it is not recognized as legitimate self-defense against an unlawful infringement. Whether an act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have given serious level of domestic violence, such as assault and abusive language, from time to time by the victim, who is the husband, for a long time. However, the type or degree of the legal interest of the defendant infringed by the above act of the victim cannot be deemed to be superior to the life of the victim, who is the legal interest infringed by the defendant's crime of this case. (2) In light of the victim's assault and verbal abuse period and degree of verbal abuse, etc., the defendant could escape from such infringement by other methods such as divorce or report. (3) The defendant's meals.