The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (political defense) the Defendant committed the instant crime to defend himself/herself in the process of responding to the victims who want to brut by putting him/her, and thus the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the defense of a political party, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that a perpetrator’s act was done with an intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending an unfair attack by the victim, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200) since the perpetrator’s act was an act of attacking at the same time, which is an act of attacking (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Sept. 7, 2016). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was found to have taken the victim’s face, etc. even after leaving the floor at around 02:16:42, the defendant’s relative G 17:21, etc., and the defendant’s relative G 21:5 of the defendant’s horse at around 198:5 times, etc., even if the police of the victim took place.

3) According to the above facts, Defendant 1’s above-mentioned act is at the same time an act of attack, which is at the same time an act of attack, and is in the nature of the act of attack, and it goes beyond the extent necessary to deprive the victim of his family or control the victim

Since it seems to be a political party's defense or excessive defense, it cannot be viewed as a political party's defense or excessive defense.

4) Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that the instant crime constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The victim is a dangerous object without any particular reason to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.