The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s act of assault in the case of 2014 Godan4341 as indicated in the judgment of the court below constitutes self-defense, since it was done with the intent of defense to prevent the victim from sparing it.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is that the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). Considering the developments leading up to the occurrence of the case acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, and the specific acts of the defendant and the victim, such act as stated in the criminal facts of the defendant cannot be deemed necessary for defending the defendant's legal interest or as a socially reasonable act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles related to self-defense, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant recognized each of the larceny and fraud crimes of this case, and is in profoundly against its depth. The degree of damage caused by each of the larceny and fraud crimes of this case is not limited, but is a living type crime due to economic difficulties, and the crime of assault and assault.