A. In a situation where there is a dispute with the victim, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the part of the victim's neck was flicked in the hands-top, and the victim's neck was flicked in order to remove the loss of the victim who flicked with flick, but the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite excluding the victim's unilateral assault or the victim's self-defense or legitimate act due to the victim's conduct to resist the victim's assault.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is not for the purpose of defending the victim’s unfair attack, but for the intent of attacking one another, and thus, the perpetrator was forced to attack against it, the harmful act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(2) In order to recognize a legitimate act as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the protected interests of infringement interests; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (b) self-defense as provided in Article 21 of the Criminal Act.