The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the victim B (year 52) and the defendant are those who reside in the Ddong of the building C in Incheon City, and the defendant is the Dong representative of the above multi-household house.

On December 31, 2017, around 12:40 on December 31, 2017, the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the structural frame of the upper thalone line, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment, by putting the shape of the defendant with the wall, while the defendant's residential corridor in the above multi-household E (37 years of age) came to dispute with the payment of management expenses from the defendant's residential corridor.

The Defendant, at the same time and place as above, assaulted the victim by setting breath, setting up against the victim’s injury, and assaulting him.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is that B, by cutting off the part of the Defendant’s timber and cutting off the Defendant’s wall with the wall, the Defendant was laid off in order for the Defendant to break out from B in a state where it is difficult to cover properly, and then, he was flaping in a flash with his hand during his arms.

Therefore, the defendant's act of benefiting B's b' constitutes self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Act.

3. Even if the appearance of the judgment appears to be one another, if one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such unlawful attack and escape therefrom, in practice, the act should be deemed to be dismissed as an act having a reasonable nature that is acceptable by social norms in light of all the circumstances, such as the developments and purpose of the act, the means, and the intent of the actor, unless the act does not go beyond the bounds of passive defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8308 delivered on February 17, 2005, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, B is the issue of paying management fees for multi-household houses at the time and time as stated in the facts charged.