The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misapprehension of the legal principle that the defendant abused the victim constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act that is aimed at setting up against the victim's violence.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was done with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against it, the perpetrator’s act of attack is at the same time an act of attack, which has the nature of the act of attack (see Supreme Court Decision 2000. Mar. 28, 200), and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 200. 200). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as follows, namely, the circumstance acknowledged by the court below which the court below properly adopted and investigated the situation that the defendant proposed the victim to leave the bank to the bank, and the defendant was committed by the victim during the process of exchanging and opposing violence, and the defendant appears to have committed the act of attack at the same time, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate defense.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Code in the situation where the act of mutual understanding takes place.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the court below affected the judgment by misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

3. Determination of an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, it is unique to the sentencing of the first trial that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness, which is taken by our criminal litigation law.