The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and misconceptions of the facts, the victim first tried to assault the defendant, so the victim was satisfed, and the victim satisfed down on the ma, and again satfing the defendant, and satisfed on the math by sating the defendant, and satisfing them on the math, but there was no assault and injury as stated in the facts charged, and even if not, it was not so.

Even if this constitutes a passive resistance against the Defendant’s prior attack, it constitutes a legitimate defense. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (hereinafter referred to as 3,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is consistent with the witness C’s facts. Moreover, the victim’s statement is credibility in light of the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement; (b) the details of the medical treatment received by being hospitalized in an emergency room immediately after the instant medical examination and related materials, such as the doctor’s opinion to click at the expense of the victim; (c) the victim cannot verify the details prescribed by the hospital and the pharmacy due to any other reason; and (d) the victim

The decision was determined.

In addition, considering the situation at the time when the above victim's statement was recognized, the defendant was found to have actively committed an attack against the victim, not to be considered as a passive resistance or a legitimate defense, and the relation between the defendant's harming act and the injury suffered was recognized.

In light of the contents of the lower judgment and the evidence duly examined by the lower court, the witness C’s statement in the lower court is credibility.