A. The Defendant did not make a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine that he removed money from the victim or take a weak charge as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

In addition, since the defendant spreaded the victim's hand and escaped to escape from the victim's assault at the time of the instant case, the defendant's act is a passive resistance, and the illegality is dismissed as it constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is necessary to determine whether an act of the relevant legal doctrine is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms, and to individually consider and reasonably determine the illegality. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act; and (ii) to establish self-defense as prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of social defense should be considerable in consideration of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement; (iii) method of infringement; and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307, Mar. 29, 2007). (2) The victim is the police and the victim.