The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. (1) In fact, the Defendant’s injury to the Victim F was committed by F with the intent of F to avoid the smoke of tobacco to the Defendant’s face and to avoid the smoke of tobacco to the Defendant’s face.

The key to the object is only contact with F’s face, and there was no intention to assault F with F, and the Defendant did not injure the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) The Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim C is a legitimate defense in order to defend the Defendant’s face first. Since C was only tightly sealed once to defend the Defendant’s face, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense with a view to defending the Defendant’s unfair attack.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of facts (in particular, the victim F’s statement, injury part, diagnosis report, etc. appearing in photographs immediately after the instant case), the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as having inflicted an injury on F by entering the smoking room where the F had smoked and F as indicated in its reasoning.

(2) The first instance court, on account of various circumstances, did not constitute a legitimate defense of the Defendant’s assault against C.

The decision was determined.

If we closely compare this with the record, we agree with the first deliberation above.

B. There is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the first instance court on the unfair argument of sentencing, and considering the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the first deliberation sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable even considering the circumstances alleged by the defendant on the grounds of appeal.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.