The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not lick the victim D’s breath or flaps, and only defended the victim’s assault.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim D has purchased a vinyl house from the defendant, and the owner of the site has met the defendant on the day of the crime of this case in order to comply with the request of the defendant for rent of 12 million won, and the victim and the defendant have met the defendant on the day of the crime of this case, and the victim and the defendant caused the defendant's bodily injury, such as freshing, freshing, freshing, freshing, etc., by breaking the defendant's arms and fresh, and the defendant has inflicted an injury on the defendant by freshing the defendant's arms and fresh, and against this, he can recognize the fact that the victim has inflicted an fresh and fresh with the right shoulder,

Meanwhile, in a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place of attack with one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was at the same time of attack with the nature of the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200) in light of the legal doctrine that the act of attack with the victim cannot be deemed as an act of defending the victim’s assault, as seen above, beyond the extent that the Defendant’s attack against the victim’s attack with the victim’s hand, and that the Defendant was at the same time engaged in an attack with the intent of attack with one another, cannot be deemed as an act of defending the victim’s assault.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.