The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles first inflicted injury on the defendant's arms, and the defendant was only the victim in the process of cutting off his arms, so it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional injury on the defendant. Even though the above act of the defendant was dismissed as it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the background of the instant case of unreasonable sentencing and the Defendant’s no particular criminal record, the lower court’s punishment (fine 500,000) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) registered as the candidate for the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment council; and (b) sought to verify the documents of candidate registration, etc. to the victim E; (c) at the time of refusal by the victim; (d) the Defendant fighted with the victim by the victim’s arms; (c) the victim was under a shouldered satonum that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment; and (d) the Defendant dried the victim’s chest part by drinking the victim’s chest, thereby causing approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim.

In light of the behavior and attitude of the defendant who can be known from the above facts, and the part of the victim's injury and its degree, etc., it can be recognized that there was an intentional injury to the defendant at the time.

In addition, in the event that an attack and a defense was conducted through a series of acts of attack and defense between the fights, and the act of defense was at the same time, the act of attack cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense by leaving only the act of a party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004).