A. misunderstanding of facts, self-defense, or legitimate act D attempted to re-confiscate the Defendant, which occurred after the Defendant fatd and pushed down with bather fat, and the Defendant only fatd D’s arms to defend himself from the aforementioned violence. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or acts that do not violate social norms, and thus, is not unlawful.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below and the court below, unlike the defendant's assertion that D only used D's arms to defend himself from the attack of D to injure him, since D's act of mistake, self-defense or legitimate act was committed by the defendant in violation of contract, and D's act was committed against the defendant due to the reason that he did not install an elevator until the agreed date in violation of contract, and it can be acknowledged that D's act was committed against the defendant, and that D's act was committed against D's breath and breath, and that D's act was committed against D's breath, and accordingly, it was acknowledged that the defendant used D's act of assault as the judgment of the court below, and in such a case, the defendant's act was the same as the act of attack, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000). In addition, the term "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the former, and whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and the illegality of which is dismissed is examined reasonably under specific circumstances.