A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant is a victim’s assaulted test and strokeed out of the stroke, and thus, constitutes a legitimate defense.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court first adopted and examined the evidence by the Defendant and the victim.

It is recognized that the Defendant continued to engage in severe humiliation, such as “,” and that the test cost was dry, ② the Defendant fatd with fat, and the Defendant also fatd with fats of the victim, and ③ the Defendant fatd with fatd with the victim, while fatd with fatd with the victim, and fatdd with the victim’s hand.

Even if the defendant is alleged by the defendant, the defendant has much more than the victim.

However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of flabing flab and flabing flab with the victim’s flab and flabing flab was an attacked first by the victim’s intent of attack rather than by defending the victim’s unjust attack.

In such a case of fighting, the act of fighting at the same time, which is a defensive act, does not constitute a legitimate defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The degree of damage suffered by the victim is relatively minor, and rather, the Defendant is the instant fighting.