All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) In December 2012, 2012, Defendant A’s use of a misunderstanding of facts, and on December 23, 2012, Defendant A’s use of a misunderstanding of facts constitutes legitimate act as a minimum defense to protect himself/herself against illegal Defendant B’s use of a defense act, or a passive resistance to avoid other party’s assault.

In addition, Defendant A’s act of injury on January 14, 2013 constitutes a justifiable act to the extent that it does not deviate from the reasonableness of social norms.

(2) The sentence (fine 50) imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s act of assault and injury against Defendant A constitutes self-defense.

2. Determination

A. It is common that it is difficult to view the Defendants’ act of attack and defense to constitute “political act” or “self-defense” or “self-defense” by putting only one of the acts of attack and defense at the same time, since the act of attack and defense was conducted throughout the past and at the same time, the act of attack and defense was in the nature of both areas, which are the act of attack and defense.

Therefore, in a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place of an attack rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator was at the same time an attack and went against it, the act is at the same time an attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.

(see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). However, in a case where one party unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, even if the act appears to be a new attack, it may be permitted under the social concept, unless it is deemed to be a new attack.