The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine merely folded the Defendant with a view to provoking a trial fee and assaulting the Defendant; and (b) subsequently, constituted a legitimate defense; and (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 800,000) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfyed with one another’s intent to attack, rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was satisfyed with one another’s intent to attack, and became satisfy against it, that act has the nature of an attack at the same time as a defensive act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200, etc.) and the court below’s duly adopted and investigated evidence at the court below and the trial, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant proposed that the victim “satisfy,” after receiving the assault from the victim and the viewing park, and that the victim arrived at the park after arrival of the victim.

3) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged as above, the fact that the injured person suspended the attack against the Defendant, and then proposed that the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s occupation to the victim, and that the Defendant assaulted the victim, and that the principal place of the Defendant’s assaulted the victim is a park adjacent to the viewing rather than coffee shop, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as a legitimate defense under the Criminal Act, rather than a defensive act.

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

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the victim first assaults the defendant and caused the defendant to be faced with the victim.