A. Legal principles recognize that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim. However, this constitutes self-defense inasmuch as the Defendant came to defend himself/herself under the circumstances where the victim threatened him/her with a threat as he/she threatened him/her.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles’ assertion, the attack and defense are continuously cross-sectioned between the persons who conduct attack and defense, and at the same time, the attack and defense are also in the nature of both areas where the attack and defense are committed. Therefore, it is common that it is difficult to view either party’s act as a justifiable act for defense, or as a justifiable act, by leaving only one party’

However, even if it appears as if it appears to be a attack, in practice, if one party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party unilaterally protects himself/herself from such unlawful attack and exercises a tangible power as a resistance means to escape therefrom, such an act does not actively reflect, but does not constitute an active attack, and in light of all circumstances such as the situation and purpose leading up to the act, means, and the intent of the actor, etc., which are reasonable and acceptable by social norms, in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7973, Jan. 11, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below recognizes the fact that the defendant used the victim as a attack on his/her hand, but the defendant was actively assaulted while the act was suspended. In addition to these facts, considering the motive and background of the crime in this case, the method and degree of exercising physical power, the situation before and after the crime, etc.