The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not commit an assault in a way such as flaging a victim or flag, and there was no intention to commit an assault.

설령 피고인이 피해자를 폭행한 사실이 있다고 하더라도, 이는 피해자가 드라이버를 꺼내들고 피고인에게 달려들어서 피고인이 방어하기 위해 손으로 드라이버 날을 붙잡아 흔들자 날이 빠졌는데, 피고인은 이를 쥔 상태에서 피해자로부터 폭행당하지 않기 위해 손을 휘저었고 그 과정에서 피해자가 다친 것이므로, 정당방위에 해당한다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court determined that the credibility of the victim’s statement was recognized after examining the victim as a witness. In so doing, the lower court convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s statement and the evidence presented in the lower judgment.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the victim made a concrete statement in the investigative agency and court of the court below that the defendant used the drone, sealed the victim’s face, body, leg, and flick, and the victim’s statement was generally consistent. ② The victim’s photographs flickly and flickly flicked or seen to be flicked by the victim’s body and the victim’s flick flick, etc. in many physical parts.