The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the Defendant threatened the victim by a steel monstner, but there is no fact that the victim’s shoulder was broken at one time due to a steel monstner.

In addition, since one victim tried to prevent the victim from committing his behavior by using a monet flaps in a situation where the defendant was sashed by flashing the flaps of the defendant, the defendant's crime of this case constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of eight hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court determined that the Defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the Defendant was at one time the victim’s shouldered with a monmonist, such as the Defendant’s instant facts charged, in light of the following: (a) the part and degree of the injury inflicted upon the Defendant immediately after the instant medical treatment; and (b) the Defendant was holding the monmonist at the time and was flading the victim.

In light of the above, the defendant was pronounced guilty.

2) First of all, we examine whether the Defendant’s shouldered the victim’s shoulder by a steel catner is recognized to have inflicted injury on the victim.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the witness I, who was the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, testified that he was the defendant, and he was flicker because he was flicker, etc.

In addition, the witness K, who is another witness, stated that the defendant was the victim, but the victim was the victim, but did not comply with the victim's monaker.

The statement was also made (No. 128, 129 of the trial record). However, the circumstances revealed by the lower court are as follows, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence. ① The victim consistently stated in the investigation agency and the lower court to the effect that the Defendant took the Defendant’s shoulder at one time, and the victim took the Defendant’s shoulder.