The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol at the Defendant’s home with the victim D, she saw the victim of the defect that the victim tried to steals the key of the Defendant’s house. The victim saw the victim’s own frighting while walking the alcohol, and used violence against the Defendant, such as using the Defendant’s hand and fright, etc. The Defendant 3-4 times to oppose this, and did not inflict an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged. Family affairs, even if the Defendant injured the victim, this constitutes legitimate self-defense or excessive defense, as it is passive act to protect the victim’s unfair attack against his body.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the judgment of the court below and the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the victim made a partial exaggeration of the situation at the time of the investigation process of this case, but later corrected the distorted part of the previous statements; and (ii) considering the overall contents of the statement, it is difficult to deem that the victim made a false statement to the effect that “the victim suffered injury from injury to the victim at the time of the investigation,” and (iii) the witness F of the court below, a police officer dispatched to the scene of this case, stated to the effect that “the victim was the victim at the time of the investigation, and the defendant stated to the effect that he was the victim at the time of his criminal act, and the face, etc. of the victim who suffered injury was the victim at the time of the investigation process of this case.” In addition, the defendant made a statement to the effect that “the victim was the victim who was the victim at the time of the investigation.”