The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no violation of rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

On the other hand, the defendant explicitly stated that his act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act as a passive resistance against the victim's violence (the defense counsel's opinion at the court of first instance as of February 8, 2012). This assertion constitutes "a statement of fact that is justified in the formation of a crime under law" under Article 323 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the court below should have clearly stated the judgment thereon, but the court below erred by omitting it. However, according to the records, the defendant's act goes beyond the passive defensive act to escape from the victim's attack merely because it goes beyond the passive defensive act to escape from the victim's attack, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense or legitimate act because it is obviously the act of attack, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.