The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was spokeing the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) on two occasions by hand at the time of the instant case, but that result, it cannot be deemed that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as salt, tension, etc. in a trend requiring approximately three weeks of treatment. The Defendant’s above act was inevitable in the course of passive defense to prevent the victim from entering the victim’s residence or assault. Thus, it constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense and thus, illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, it should be judged individually by examining the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004); and Article 21 of the Criminal Act provides that the act of self-defense to be recognized as a legitimate self-defense or as a legitimate self-defense for the purpose of being recognized as an infringement of social interests, and thus, it must not be recognized as unlawful.