The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was guilty of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not constitute a legitimate act or self-defense, since the Defendant committed an act of assaulting and defending the Defendant in excess of the director’s cost, and thus, did not constitute an offense. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. Even if the court below found the defendant guilty of unfair sentencing, the punishment imposed by the court below (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, it is necessary to determine whether an act is justified as a legitimate act that does not contravene social norms, and the illegality is excluded, under specific circumstances, by examining the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307, Mar. 29, 2007). In order 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 nature and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the type and degree of the legal interest that may be infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of the legal interest that may be infringed by the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3940, 2005Do15, Sept. 30, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.). Health unit with respect to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s request for the transport of news to the victim.