The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the following facts.

A. The Defendant did not know whether there was little time when the victim was a victim, and whether the cause of the victim’s injury was due to the assault of the victim.

B. At night, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or political party act, or an act of fear, light, entertainment, or confusion under the night or other extraordinary circumstances, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes “act due to fear, bad faith, entertainment, or confusion” under Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the defendant also recognized that there was a fighting match between the defendant and the victim. The defendant's statements from the investigative agency to this court are consistent, as well as the statements from the victim's investigative agency to this court. Even if the police is based on the photograph taken immediately after the instant case, the defendant appears in the victim's left eye, luminous bones, coaches, arms, etc., and the above photograph and the degree of the victim's injury are consistent with the contents of the diagnosis as to the parts and degree of the victim's injury as stated in the judgment of the court below. It is sufficiently recognized that the defendant abused the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below and caused the injury

B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that a perpetrator’s act was satisfyed with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another’s attack, that act cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense since it has the nature of an attack at the same time, which is a defensive act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was a victim even if the victim satisfyed with the Defendant and left the scene.