A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant, while being subjected to unilateral assault from the victim, was passively responding to escape from the victim, this constitutes self-defense, this does not constitute a crime.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state that the Defendant has weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental retardation disorder.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 800,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) A determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is based on the following circumstances, namely, ① a vehicle driven by a victim G was made to attack Defendant on the alley road, and at the same time to defend himself/herself, and even if the other party seems to have fighting, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense by unilaterally adopting only one of the acts of the parties, barring special circumstances, such as where the other party unilaterally committed an unlawful attack and the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011). 2) The lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence: (a) although it was obvious that the vehicle driven by the victim would attack Defendant on the alley road, it was not sufficient to attack Defendant; (b) the victim and the Defendant appeared to have been deprived of his/her desire between G and the victim.