The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed the instant crime beyond a certain degree to prevent unfair infringement while leaving three males, including the victim, for instance, the Defendant committed the instant crime in excess of the degree of excessive defense.

(2) The defendant asserted that the defendant had the original mistake of facts and self-defense or excessive defense, and the second trial date of the trial and withdrawal of all of the allegations of mistake, including the self-defense, should not be judged separately.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place of attack with the intent of attacking one another rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was at the same time of attack and went against it, the act was at the same time an attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense or excessive defense, since it has the nature of an attack.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228 Decided March 28, 2000).

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s crime of this case does not constitute excessive defense in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) While the Defendant, the victim, G, or L brought money to the victim, the Defendant unilaterally destroyed the victim’s seat, and the victim went out to go out with the victim’s hand knife with a knife knife with a knife knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with the Defendant. However,