The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant’s assault of this case by misunderstanding the fact that the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) was not satisfed, but is not good for the Plaintiff’s children.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, inasmuch as the Defendant was assaulted by the victimized person first, and the victim was satisfly satisfed by the nature of the protection, it constitutes a legitimate defense

(c)

Sentencing is unfair because the sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the defendant's face was sold at a number of times to the victim's face and the victim's baby was broken,” and ii) witnessed at the scene.

D’s statement also complies with the victim’s statement, and the police officer called at the time taken the part of the victim’s shoulder satisf, ③ the victim took the part of the victim’s shoulder satisfy, ③ the victim received dental treatment immediately following the day of the instant case, and the dental treatment records also contain “the catfy of the 3 Daegu (Franchisatf)”, ④ the victim and D gather the defendant, and ④ it is difficult to find any motive for the victim to make a false statement. In full view of the above, the Defendant’s statement sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim’s face was inflicted an injury by selling the victim’s face at drinking as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, and thus, the Defendant’

B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against it, the perpetrator’s act of attack, at the same time, is an act of attack.