The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely threatening the defendant by threatening the defendant with a large cart, and the defendant's act does not constitute a crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act, inasmuch as the Defendant’s act is merely a secret fright against the victim’s shoulder at the time of threatening that the victim seems to have a large amount of cart, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim (the employee at the scene of the crime in this case is the employee at the scene of the crime in this case) was led to the defendant's side, and the victim's shoulder was sealed by the defendant.

On the other hand, the victim threatened the defendant with large cart.

There is no circumstance in which the situation was or was playing.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without reason to further examine.

B. In the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing, where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial at the lower court. Considering the following as a whole: (a) Defendant’s character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime were committed, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Accordingly, the defendant's objection.