The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principle, in a situation where the victim E rancing beer mar and flabing the beer mar and the Defendant’s body flab, the Defendant’s act constitutes excessive self-defense or excessive self-defense as stipulated under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a self-defense or excessive self-defense.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is both aware of and against his own act, and that he is scheduled to deposit for the purpose of changing damage in the trial, the sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the illegality of the Defendant’s act is recognized on the grounds that (i) the victim’s body fighting with the Defendant’s table, i.e., e., the Defendant’s behavior, i.g., and J’s statements or Dp’s employees’ statements, excluding the victim’s or the victim’s conduct; (ii) the degree of injury suffered by the victim may play considerable external force; and (iii) the victim’s body fighting with the Defendant’s table, i.e., the Defendant’s behavior, i., the Defendant’s behavior, except the victim’s or the victim’s conduct, could not be accepted by social norms, on the grounds that it appears that the victim’s body fighting with the Defendant’s table, i.e., punishing the Defendant and the Defendant’s arb, or breathing the arb, etc.; and (ii) the degree of injury suffered by the victim’s external force

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case, which was judged by the court below, is justified in the decision of the court below that the defendant's act was unlawful for the above reasons, and unless there are any evidence additionally submitted in the trial, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the defendant.