Therefore, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Determination 1) Whether a certain act is unlawful as a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms should be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (a) to recognize such legitimate act: (b) the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (c) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (d) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act; and (e) to establish legitimate defense as prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, defense act should be socially reasonable in light of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement; (d) the completion of the act of infringement; and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the defense act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2114 Decided June 11, 2009) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was subject to restraint from the victim who is a security personnel in large marate, and the victim was tightly boomed by the victim's chest, and the victim was resisted by the defendant and boomed by the defendant three times the chest of the victim. Based on the above legal principles, the defendant was able to recognize the fact of the above recognition, circumstances of the crime, situation at the time of the crime, degree of violence, etc., in full view of the above facts, the defendant's chest was 3 times the victim's chest.