The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense, as it was intended to prevent the Defendant from entering the door of the Defendant’s house and leaving the house back without being able to commit the act of the victim.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as above as to the background of the instant case, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant’s assertion was not reliable, and found guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, in full view of the victim D and E’s legal statement in the lower court and the 112 declaration at the time.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and since the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate act or a legitimate defense, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

It is evaluated or new in the course of the appellate court's sentencing review.