The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendant was aware of the victim as a larceny who stolen the victim’s own goods, and the victim of the sound physical attack was in a situation where it was difficult to conceal the Defendant’s breath because he was unable to kill him; and (b) therefore, it constitutes self-defense.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake of fact or misapprehension of legal principles, to recognize certain act as legitimate self-defense, it must be reasonable that such act is designed to defend “the present unfair infringement” against one’s own or another’s legal interests (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003). 2) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s self-defense assertion on the premise that it was an act aimed at defending the present unfair infringement was groundless.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, (i) the defendant, at around September 11, 2017, 15:55, 15:5, 201, the victim, who was following his own side, was faced with drinking and was trying to keep the victim from drinking, and (ii) the defendant was not seen to have attempted to inflict any harm on the defendant before he was exposed to drinking; (iii) the victim was the defendant who got into the toilet and continued drinking, and did not actively attack the defendant; and (iv) the defendant, who was present at the time, was also a G employee, committed drinking to the victim in order to prevent the defect that he was about to keep the victim drinking, and did not actively attack the defendant; and (iii) the defendant was also a witness at the time.