The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act such as a mistake of facts or a mistake of legal principles (defendants) is an act that is not unlawful, or cannot be punished on the grounds that it is an excessive defense under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act or Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act, as it is a legitimate defense under Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of the court below, which held that it constitutes an excessive defense as stipulated in Article 21 (2) of the Criminal Act, which was merely a reason for voluntary reduction or exemption of punishment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements for the establishment of a legitimate defense or excessive defense, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that the defendant's act, such as the facts charged, does not constitute a legitimate defense under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Act or an excessive defense under Article 21 (3) of the Criminal Act, by taking account of the legal principles and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, but constitutes an excessive defense under Article 21 (2) of the Criminal Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the facts as the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the facts are generally recognized by the defendant, and the errors are divided, the fact that there are no criminal records other than the one-time fine, and some circumstances seems to exist to consider the motive leading to the crime. The court below deposited KRW 50 million for the bereaved family members of the victim, and the family members of the defendant want to take the preference against the defendant.