A. The Defendant’s act is merely a passive defensive act in order to prevent the victimized person’s assault, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

In addition, the defendant did not expect that the victim would return to the direction of the so-called "deed glass cup", so there was no possibility of injury.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable in light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case.

2. We examine the determination of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles; the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; in particular, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the statements of E and D, namely, the E, at the time of the instant case, had expressed a little attitude that the E, under the influence of alcohol, had expressed a desire for the Defendant and had a little threat.

Even if the defendant could have easily avoided it, it seems that the defendant could not easily avoid it, and there was no need to divide the victim's hand into his body and control it.

In light of the fact that the defendant's act is beyond the limit of passive defense against the victim's unfair attack and can be seen as having the nature of active attack. Accordingly, the defendant's act constitutes legitimate act is without merit.

In addition, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant could easily expect that there was a shouldered World Cup on the side of the victim at the time when the Defendant was frightened with the victim, and that the Defendant was aware of this fact, and that the victim would have been frightened or try to take place to get out of the Defendant’s suppression, the Defendant can fright in the process of escaping from the Defendant’s pressure.