The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-finding special injury, the Defendant’s pro-Japanese M was subject to a group assault from the victim H’s sexual behavior, and the Defendant’s son and the Defendant were forced to defend the Defendant’s body against an empty fluor’s disease in order to use the Defendant’s fluoral fluor’s fluorial fluoring fluoring the Defendant’s fluoring away from her female fluor. Therefore, the Defendant’s legitimate defense or excessive defense should be recognized.

Even if it is not recognized that an unfair infringement has continued, this part of the crime committed by the defendant with the above intent constitutes an excessive defense or mistake.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also presented the same argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s finding and determination of such facts is justifiable. In so determining, there were errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee on the basis of Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Act on the Organization of Courts (hereinafter “Sentencing Criteria”) shall be “reasonable, concrete, and objective setting” through the “procedures prescribed by the Act” in order to realize the “fair and objective sentencing in which the people trust,” and “public disclosure”. Judges shall respect the selection of the type of punishment and the determination of the sentence (see Articles 81-2 through 81-12 of the Court Organization Act). In a case where the reasons for the sentencing are to be stated in the written judgment as a result of a judgment that deviates from the sentencing guidelines, the court shall have the meaning of the sentencing guidelines.