The Defendant was at the time of facing D's face with the arms or hand when they get off both arms.

As such, the defendant's exercise of force cannot be seen as an active act of attack and self-defense or legitimate act, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous in mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that: (a) the Defendant committed an assault against the Defendant, such as taking back the back head debt of the Defendant at the dispute with D; (b) caused the Defendant to take back back back back the back head debt of the Defendant; and (c) immediately thereafter, D’s left hand was first coming back to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant took away the left hand of D; (b) the Defendant took away the Defendant’s hand on the opposite direction in sight while putting away the Defendant’s hand; (c) during that process, it was recognized that the Defendant’s hand or arms faced with D’s shock, and even if the Defendant took her seat with D’s hand or arms, it constitutes a passive resistance to protect himself from an unfair attack, which constitutes self-defense under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act or an act that is reasonable in view of social norms, and thus, it constitutes illegality of the instant facts charged.

B. In a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses a tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom even if it appears that the act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to allow under social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). The act of defense as the requisite for establishing self-defense is purely passive.