The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All applications for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s act is merely a passive resistance, and thus, the illegality should be avoided as a legitimate act that does not constitute legitimate self-defense or contravene social norms, because the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense.

The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In order to establish legitimate self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, a certain act that does not contravene social norms, and thus, should be determined individually by taking into account the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (ii) to establish legitimate 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 type, degree, method, method of infringement; and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement; and

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act is not a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from an unilateral illegal attack and to escape therefrom, but rather a means of resistance to the extent of passive defense, in light of the motive and circumstance of the instant assault, the situation before and after, and the degree of injury inflicted on the victim, etc.