① However, the Defendant used the victim’s cell phone in the process of intending to capture the victim’s cell phone and spread the victim’s cell phone in order to find his cell phone, and thus, was not justifiable in itself. ② The Defendant went out to commit an active attack, such as scaming the victim’s sponsoring the victim’s sponsororororing the victim’s body, and sponsoring the victim’s face, sponsor, and sponsoring the victim’s body, etc.; and the degree of assault is considerable to the extent that the victim would have caused the victim to feel the same pain, so considerable in the means and method is not recognized; ③ the victim’s external report was heard by the neighboring resident and reported 112. At the time, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an urgent and inevitable means in view of such circumstances.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the facts, which found the defendant's act as justifiable.

2. At around 12:40 on February 15, 2018, the Defendant committed assault, such as locating in a corridor B 12th floor in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, against Defendant’s assault, making the face unsatisfy and pushed down the body body.

3. Determination

A. At the time of the instant case, the lower court: (a) assaulted Defendant at the time of the instant judgment, i.e., when the Defendant sought to bring C’s mobile phone device back to it; (b) when intending to bring C’s face, the Defendant’s face and body face were taken up against it; and (c) recognized the Defendant’s act constitutes a passive defensive act, and thus does not constitute a crime.

C. .