A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) In the event that the victim was in excess of the victim, and the victim was faced with flaged rice with flag, the fact of injury cannot be recognized. Since the defendant only flaged the victim's hand, he did not have an intention to inflict injury on the victim, and even if so, he did not do so.

Even if the defendant's act is not a passive resistance, it is justified.

2) Since the Defendant of interference with business was merely divided into both horses and galms free of charge, it cannot be viewed as a force determined by the obstruction of business, and there was no intention to interfere with business.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 1,500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party unilaterally uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such unlawful attack and escape therefrom, the act does not go beyond the limit of passive defense, and in light of all circumstances such as the situation leading up to the act and its purpose, means and intent of the actor, etc., the illegality of the act is discovered (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3377 delivered on October 12, 199, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the diagnosis submitted by the victim, other than the 4-5 Mo-5 Mora, where the victim suffered an injury on the part of the damaged party, the injured party was consistently challenged with the Defendant and the victim at the place where the Defendant and the victim suffered an injury on the part of the police station, and the victim was consistently challenged with the Defendant and the victim at the place where the Defendant and the victim suffered an injury on the part of the police station.

The defendant is also the victim who has made a statement.