A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not constitute an assault against a victim, and even if the fact that the defendant used the assault against the victim is acknowledged, this constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense or legitimate act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of facts: (a) considering the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluation of credibility based on the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle; (b) in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court; or (c) there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous; or (d) in light of the result of the first instance court’s examination and the result of additional examination of evidence conducted by the time of closing argument at the appellate court, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is remarkably unreasonable, an appellate court should not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court differs from the appellate court’s determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2019).