The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victim, and there was no flabbbing and spathing the victim’s flab.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty.

2) The misunderstanding of the legal doctrine affected the Defendant’s unauthorized intrusion upon the right of retention at the construction site.

In the course of exercising the right to demand interference with possession based on the right of retention, the Defendant performed flapsing and flapsing the victim, which constitutes a self-help act as stipulated in Article 23 of the Criminal Act.

3) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, on the grounds that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury on the victim by putting balths of the victim.

(1) At an investigative agency and a court below, the victim showed that the defendant was sleeping his bridge.

The Defendant consistently stated the investigation records (23,25 pages, and 189 pages of the trial records). (2) At the time, the Defendant was at the instant site along with G and F.

G was exceeded in the original trial by the Defendant and the victim while playing a bridge with each other.

The statement was made (175,176 pages of trial records). F also was made by investigative agencies and the defendant in the original trial that he was able to breath the victim's breath by hand.

The statement was made (31 pages of investigation records, 163 pages of trial records). 3 The content of the diagnosis of injury (28 pages of investigation records) issued by the victim on the following day of this case also conforms to the victim's statement.

3. The act of self-help under the Criminal Code as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle

“Where it is difficult to preserve a claim by legal procedure, it refers to an act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081, Mar. 24, 2006). The court below legitimately adopts the claim at the court below.