The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant only took a block with the victim’s hand at the time of the instant case, and did not have any knife the victim’s fingers.

With regard to 2018 U.S. 120, the defendant made an insulting statement to the victim and acted against him/her, and with regard to 2018 U.S. 447, the victim voluntarily stated the contents even after the end of the meeting and prevented the victim from being forced to do so. As such, each behavior of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and its illegality is denied.

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

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the content of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or in exceptional cases where the first instance court’s maintenance of the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly unreasonable considering the result of the first instance examination and the result of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court should respect the first instance court’s determination on

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do7917, Jan. 30, 2009; 2017Do7871, Mar. 29, 2018). In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, (i) the victim D has deducted the Defendant’s scriptive pension cited by the victim at the time of the instant case during the examination process of the witness by the lower court.