A. The Defendant’s act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles merely for the purpose of defending the victims’ first resort to assaulting Defendant’s work, and thus, it is justified as a self-defense or legitimate act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the details and degree of force of the instant assault, which was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense as an act with considerable grounds for defending unfair infringement against himself/herself, and constitutes legitimate self-defense.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, because it is merely a passive defensive act and does not seem to constitute a legitimate act that can be permitted by social norms.

B. The Defendant appears not to unilaterally assault the victims of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the fact that the degree of each injury of the victims is relatively minor is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case appears to have resulted from the defendant's daily activity first to the victims solely on the ground that the defendant's daily activity was committed for the purpose of aiding the defendant's daily activity to avoid the disturbance as a result of trial with other customers. Nevertheless, the defendant only claims that he was punished for having himself, and that his mistake seems not to be against the defendant's disadvantage is the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and the circumstances that are the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too excessive.