The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant only caused the victim by violent language and abusive language, which led the defendant strongly, and constitutes self-defense) and unfair sentencing. 2. The decision of this court on February 2, 199

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc., it is difficult to deem the Defendant’s act to be unlawful as a self-defense against the present unfair infringement. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion disputing

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no other similar type of criminal records against the Defendant regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing; (b) there are other circumstances to consider the background leading to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family circumstances, and various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant argument, including the circumstances before and after the instant crime, a fine imposed on the Defendant by the first

3. As a result, the appeal by the defendant is justifiable, the judgment of the first instance is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment is again rendered following the pleadings.

The criminal facts and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant law as to the crime and the choice of a punishment (the choice of a fine) under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act: 1. A fine of 500,000 won to be suspended on January 1, 200; 1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (the custody of a workhouse) of the Criminal Act (the custody of a workhouse).