A. Since a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles has been committed with the victim while the victim had a verbal dispute with the victim, the victim was pushed the victim by selling to defend against the defect about to injure the victim by leading him/her, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act that constitutes legitimate self-defense or that does not contravene social norms.

C. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed against it, it cannot be viewed as self-defense because it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200). "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act which is permissible in light of the overall legal order or social ethics or social norms, and is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it should be judged individually by examining the purpose and rational nature of the act, under specific circumstances, whether the illegality of the act is excluded. Thus, to recognize such a legitimate act, the act should meet the following requirements: first, the motive or justification of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the act, and the balance between the interests and interests.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000 delivered on September 26, 2003, etc.). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant and the victim, which can be duly admitted and examined by the court below, are serious.