The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act of misapprehending the legal doctrine merely constitutes an act of resistance that occurred in the course of attempting to deprive the Defendant of the arms attached to the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s act of misapprehending the legal doctrine is merely an act of resistance that occurred in the course of attempting to cut off the arms attached to the victim, and thus does not constitute a crime of self-defense or legitimate act.

However, in order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, it shall be determined individually by considering the following specific circumstances: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (b) to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement; and the type and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of infringement; and (e) the kind and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of defense.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of resistance to protect himself/herself from an unilateral illegal attack and escape therefrom. In light of the motive and circumstance of the assault of this case, and the situation before and after it is acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, etc., the extent of passive defense is limited to the Defendant’s act as an resistance to escape from the victim’s unilateral illegal attack.