The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which held that the illegality of the defendant's act as a self-defense or a legitimate act is excluded, despite the difficulty in recognizing a balance of legal interests in light of the degree of damage, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or erroneous determination of facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On September 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the house of D located in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 22:35, 2012, the Defendant: (b) placed the victim in the dispute with the victim E in a plastic box to put the victim in a tight box; and (c) forced the victim to keep the victim from leaving the box, and (d) engaged in an injury, such as catus catry, which requires treatment for about 35 days.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act is reasonable, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as a new active attack since it was difficult to view it as a new active attack since the victim’s unlawful attack and exercised force to protect and escape himself/herself, and thus, the Defendant’s act was reasonable in light of social norms, and thus acquitted the Defendant.

(1) At the time, the victim, who opened the door door of D, reported the victim's vehicle as illegal parking, the victim saw that "the victim was spacker and spacked well, today. The spacker and spacker.............." The victim spacked the victim's vehicle and spacked the Defendant into the house, spacking the Defendant into the house, spacking the Defendant's sprink and spacking the Defendant's sprink and s

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant was able to take away the victim from the victim, put the victim on a plastic box, and report the victim to D, and until the police took charge of the police. In this process, the victim was about 35 days.