The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the probative value of a medical certificate of injury and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the injured party at the time of the instant case, even though the injured party was at first humping the Defendant at the time of the Defendant’s defense, and did not have inflicted injury upon the injured party at the time of the Defendant’s defense, the lower court erred by misapprehending

B. The lower court’s punishment (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, on April 21, 2016, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Busan District Court 2014 High Order 8230, 9598, 10168 (each combination), which was sentenced to two years of imprisonment (Evidence No. 67-80), and filed an appeal with the Busan District Court 2016No. 468 (Evidence No. 2016, Feb. 14, 2017), and filed an appeal with the Defendant on May 11, 2017 (Supreme Court 2017Do3609).

Since the crime of the judgment of the court below and the above fraud, etc. for which the judgment of the court below has become final and conclusive are concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be imposed in consideration of equity and the concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below

However, we examine the judgment of the court below on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, since the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court.

3. If a judgment of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the defendant was issued only with medical possibility, depending on the victim’s subjective appeal, etc. that the victim has mainly paind, it shall be very careful in determining the probative value (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15018, Nov. 25, 2016). However, the date of diagnosis of the injury and the date of preparation of the injury diagnosis shall be the injury.