The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. Political defense Defendant’s failure to inflict an injury on the victim, but this constitutes an act of opposing the victim’s assault, and thus constitutes legitimate defense.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was erroneous on April 7, 2016, which was the date and time of the crime indicated in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment below, on the grounds of appeal. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was erroneous on April 17, 2016, as stated in the first trial date, that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was erroneous on the grounds that the Defendant’s amendment to the indictment was permitted on April 17, 2016, since the date of the crime was corrected on April 17, 201

On the other hand, the above amendment of indictment is aimed at correcting a simple clerical error, and the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio despite the amendment of indictment).

2. Determination

A. The acts of attack and defense committed between the fighting parties in compliance with the determination of a political party’s defense are ordinarily conducted, and the acts of attack and defense are also in the nature of both areas, which are the acts of attack and defense, at the same time. Thus, the acts of either party are legitimate acts to defend against them by resorting only to either party’s acts;

(1) The court below’s evidence duly adopted and examined as follows: (a) the Defendant did not constitute a legitimate defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 201). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the Defendant was found to have inflicted an injury upon the victim’s body tightly and repeatedly, as stated in the facts charged.

On the other hand, at the time of the case, the victim seems to have inflicted an injury by cutting down the part of the defendant's wood by putting the part of the defendant's wood back to the floor and destroying it beyond the floor. As alleged by the defendant, the victim first started to assault the defendant, as argued by the

Even if the above act of the defendant was done by defense, the above act of the defendant

It is difficult to see that it has the nature of attack against the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.