A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant reported that A performs a threatening behavior against D and came to go beyond the body of A to remove A from D, and the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of assaulting A.

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

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(2) Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that “an act that does not violate social rules” means an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, in order for a certain act to constitute a justifiable act, the elements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected legal interest and the protected legal interest and the protected legal interest and the protected legal interest of the law, urgency, and any other means or method other than the act should be satisfied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original court of this case, the following circumstances may be acknowledged.

1 The victim A made a statement at an investigative agency and the court below on the facts of the assault of this case as follows.

"At the time of internal conflicts with D, the defendant will appear suddenly and be laid down on the ground floor after the latter.