The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) The Defendant did not see the victim’s chest side or drinking the victim’s face to the left. The Defendant and the victim’s face can be seen as her own in the process of punishing the victim’s face. 2) The Defendant’s body was committed by the victim to defend the victim’s breath by breathing the Defendant’s breath, thereby constituting self-defense.

3) It is difficult to view that female victims were assaulted for about 30 minutes from the Defendant, who is male, and suffered only two weeks of medical treatment. The victim’s statements that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case are inconsistent and thus, are less reliable. (B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine are consistent with the facts charged in the instant case from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court. In other words, the victim’s statement and on-site photograph of the victim, and the image of the damaged photograph is consistent with the part and degree of the victim’s injury.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances before and after the crime of this case, the degree of injury suffered by the victim, etc., the above act of the defendant cannot be deemed as self-defense that does not deviate from the passive limit of defense, and the defendant cannot be deemed as proportional to the length of time when the victim was injured and the degree of injury suffered by the victim.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.