The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, was salvbing the victim’s flaps, and it was an act of setting up against the victim’s strong leading of the Defendant to the labor force room. Therefore, it constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 1, 2017, around 19:40, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault that embling the victim’s ebbbbbbbage, while taking the desire to see whether the victim C (the 37 years of age, south) would be able to grow before opening the opening site of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B basin No. 10; and (b) on the ground that the victim C (the 37 years of age, south) would have to grow before opening the opening site of Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul; (c) on the ground that the act constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense as a ground for excluding illegality. (d) Whether the act constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense should be determined reasonably and reasonably depending

To be recognized as a legitimate act, 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 legal interests and the infringed legal interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary requirement that there is no other means or method than the act.

In addition, in order to establish self-defense, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, the level of completion of the infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the defense act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do15226, Dec. 27, 2018). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health stand in the instant case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant asserted that he/she was shakingd against the victim who tried to strongly attract himself/herself, but the victim consistently stated that he/she was the Defendant.