The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the representative director of the tenant representative of C (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) at the time of the instant case, and the victim illegally locked the door of the management office room with various facilities necessary for the safety of residents, such as gas alarmer, elevator emergency telephone, water pumps for the drainage of groundwater, the key to the electric room, etc., and there is only an act to open the door, and the victim, first of all, attacked the defendant’s hand with the wheels, etc., and put his hand in order to open the door.

As a result, there was no intention to inflict an injury on the victim because the victim was injured by the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not violate self-defense or social norms to defend unfair infringement of his or her legal interests.

B. In consideration of the various circumstances of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (the fine of KRW 500,000) is unlimited and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the following circumstances, all of the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently convicted. On the other hand, in response to the victim’s assault, the Defendant’s act committed against the victim in order to open a door is both defensive act and the act of attack has the nature of the act of attack at the same time, and it cannot be deemed as a passive resistance to escape from the other party’s unfair attack. Thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be viewed as a legitimate act or self-defense.

The judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is correct, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) The defendant is a male who is 48 years of age as the president of the tenant representative of the apartment of this case, and the victim claims the dismissal of the defendant.