The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In both the case of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the previous case of this case, there was no assault against the victim in a stimulative manner even though the victim had stimulatedly impaired the defendant first, and the defendant did not assault the victim in a stimulative manner.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not based on the nature of the offender, and the habitual nature of the act is not that of the offender. Thus, the existence of habitual nature as prescribed by Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined by taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, occupation, environment, transfer, and fact-finding, motive, means, method and place of the crime, temporal interval with the crime committed before and after the crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do6176, May 11, 2006). 2) The evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below (in particular, an investigation report (Attachment to 112 report statement, etc.), inquiry report including criminal records, and investigation report (verification of the same criminal records), and each statement, etc., of the criminal investigation report, even if the Defendant’s prior to 2008 assault-related criminal records were committed against the victim or the victim of this case without any specific reason.

A defendant and his defense counsel.