The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s face by drinking, and he was aware of the Defendant’s neck by selling, etc., and he did not assault E in the process of attempting to escape from this process, and even if he was injured during that process, it constitutes legitimate self-defense in light of the situation at the time. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The act of defense shall be socially reasonable in light of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, in order to establish self-defense as prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Act;

(1) In cases where a perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense, rather than for defending a victim’s wrongful attack, if it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense. In addition, the perpetrator’s act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense, and thus, constitutes self-defense.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim E can be acknowledged as having inflicted an injury on the victim by drinking out the victim, not merely defending the victim's attack, but by drinking. Thus, since the defendant's act is deemed to have the nature of the act of attack, it cannot be viewed as self-defense. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is groundless, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.