The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Political act, self-defense or excessive defense (i.e., sexual harassment at D cafeteria at the time of the instant case, the victim committed an indecent act against female customers at D cafeteria, and the Defendant physically assaults the victim’s salute and head. As such, the Defendant merely expressed that he was able to capture the emergency situation to his hand in an urgent manner.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act, self-defense or excessive defense.

Do. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality.

B. Although the Defendant was unable or weak to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical disorder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. An act of a political party, self-defense, or assertion of excessive defense between a fighting matchr and a person who makes a fighting match have committed an ordinary attack and defense by force, and at the same time, the act of attack and defense was conducted, and both sides of the act of attack, which are both acts of attack. Thus, even if the fightingr appears to be conducted, barring special circumstances, such as (i) a party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack, and (ii) the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, it cannot be said that only one of the acts of the parties is a legitimate act for defense or self-defense.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011). Sheshe legitimately adopted the lower court.