The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of facts as to the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of legal principles (if the victim only saws the victim's knife with his knife with his knife with his knife with his knife and did not assault the victim. Even if there was an act of assault against

2. The victim testified in the court below to the effect that "the defendant was slicked to the convenience store calculation unit and was slicked twice by keeping the victim's slick with the victim's slick and slicked twice the victim's slick. After that, the defendant testified to the effect that "the defendant was slicked in the atmosphere, and knicked the victim's knick."

The court below acknowledged the credibility of the above testimony and found that the defendant's act of assault cannot be viewed as self-defense or legitimate act on the ground that "the defendant was guilty of scambling the victim's scams twice with his hand and scaming the victim's hand by hand." The court below found the facts charged of the assault of this case, and determined that the defendant's act of assault of this case cannot be viewed as self-defense or legitimate act on the ground that he did not display his knife the knife before the above assault was committed.

Judgment of the court below on the credibility of the above testimony was clearly erroneous.

The Defendant’s assertion to the effect that it is difficult to view that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is, is not accepted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

Considering the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the instant crime, the circumstances after committing the instant crime, and other circumstances that form the elements of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is acceptable.