The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim sought a theft, such as not returning the joint ownership of the D agricultural partnership owned by the defendant; and (b) the defendant's act was committed in the course of vagabonds to receive a return of the joint ownership; and (c) the illegality of the defendant's act should be avoided as a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances, whether certain acts of the relevant legal doctrine do not violate the social norms, and thus, whether illegality is removed as a legitimate act. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act. In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable, taking into account all such specific circumstances as the type, degree, method of infringement, the amount of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2114 Decided June 11, 2009) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the circumstance is acknowledged where the victim brought his/her joint use of the mergator owned by D agricultural partnership and did not immediately return the mergator's request after using the mergator owned by D agricultural partnership.

However, considering the following circumstances admitted by the aforementioned evidence, the defendant's act of assaulting the victim's body by force twice is legitimate or legitimate defense.