The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant, by assaulting the victim E and the victim F, had been injured.

B. Legal principles as to self-defense (the part concerning injury to the victim E) was limited to the victim’s breathum with the intent to defend the failure by the victim E, the main point of the instant case, and at the time, the victim took knife.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant inflicted each injury on the victim E and the victim F by taking each face into consideration as stated in the judgment of the court below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Determination of legal principles as to the assertion of legal principles is 1) An act of defending the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest, if there are reasonable grounds, shall not be punishable, and a punishment may be mitigated or remitted under the circumstances when the act of defending the victim goes beyond the extent (Article 21(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). However, in order to constitute self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, an act of defending the victim by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defending the infringement, should be socially reasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992; 2005Do3940, Sept. 30, 2005; 2005Do15, etc.). Meanwhile, the perpetrator’s act of defending the victim’s intent of attack, rather than to attack the victim.