The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) prices the damaged person by a brand to gather the victim when the victim assaulted himself/herself to drink; and (b) did not assault the victim by golf loans.

The defendant's act is to defend against the violence of the victimized person, and constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court and the trial court. In other words, in light of ① the part and degree of the victim’s upper part (Evidence No. 32 pages-35 pages) (Evidence No. 32-35 pages of evidence records), it appears to be difficult for the defendant to have used them without assaulting the defendant with dangerous articles, ② CCTV images (Evidence No. 56 pages-58 pages of evidence records) in the management office are not taken by the defendant directly assaulting the victim with golf, but the defendant’s attitude expressed in video is more likely to blish the victim’s face rather than to defend the victim’s unilateral assault. It appears that the defendant’s attitude expressed in the image would have been blick up with the victim’s face before the victim was exposed to drinking, and that it is more likely that the defendant suffered injury by the victim was unilaterally treated than 28 days from the victim’s face at the time of treatment.

(4) In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized all the facts charged in the lower court and agreed with the victim, the Defendant is identical to the franchise and golf loans as the facts charged.