The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts as stated in the Defendant’s criminal facts as stated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and the injury suffered by the injured party do not have a relation to the person.

In other words, while the damaged person puts his hand to the front window of the vehicle, the part where the injured person suffered the injury does not contact with the front wheels of the vehicle and the body part of the vehicle, and the victim's bridge cannot be seen in the front wheel part of the vehicle structure.

2) There is no evidence that the victim suffered an open space for a long-term bridge of the “in need of three weeks’ medical treatment” as stated in the facts charged of this case.

The diagnosis that the injured person received on the date of the first case includes only two weeks’ treatment, and the examination that the injured person received five days’ later, does not include “the multilater open for a long bridge.”

In the end, the main point of the lower-age bridge open to the victim is “the injury requiring medical treatment for a period of five days”. 3) Even if the injured party suffered the injury caused by the Defendant’s act, the injured party suffered the injury.

Even if the victim's injury can be cured without treatment, and it is difficult to see that the victim's health is infringed, and it cannot be evaluated that the victim was injured by a special injury under the Criminal Act.

4) In the instant case, the injured party shouldered the front glass of the vehicle owned by the Defendant with the brick, and was seated on the top of the vehicle.

Since it was caused by attacking D, the defendant's act of taking back the vehicle of this case is aimed at defending the infringement of the victim's unfair legal interests, and is merely passive back, it is reasonable to defend the defendant, and the injury suffered by the victim is merely a minor diagnosis, and the defendant's act of defending the victim constitutes a legitimate act.

In addition, the act of the accused is the act of the accused.