The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim took the victim's blick force on the one hand without any reason first, and the defendant took the victim's blick force once again at the time of the victim's defense level, and the victim took the victim's blick force once again at the same time. However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although these acts constitute self-defense.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (200,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the fact that at the time the defendant was at the time when the victim was the victim who was the victim, was at the time when the victim was her son, and the defendant was immediately at the time when the victim was her son. Considering the circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the form and degree of the defendant's act, and the situation at the time of the crime, etc., the above act of the defendant is a defensive act against the victim, and it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since it constitutes a defensive act

Therefore, the defendant's above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. At the time of the instant case’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the victim assaulted the victim by taking the victim’s her son by force as his her son, and the defendant set her son at one time against this, and the victim again took the victim’s her son at one time, and the victim again took the her son’s son. The degree of the Defendant’s son was relatively minor, and the victim’s son’s son was not deemed to have suffered injury or to have suffered other damage therefrom, and it is recognized that the Defendant’s age, character, environment, occupation, and circumstances after the