The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the circumstance that the victim of legal principles unilaterally breathizes the Defendant’s breath and breath, the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s breath with things to defend himself. Thus, it constitutes self-defense or at least excessive self-defense.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the determination of the above grounds for appeal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport that the prosecutor changed the “scisf (not less than 80 cm in length)” to “scisf (not less than 60 cm in length)” in the facts charged in the trial of the party. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, since the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles needs to be judged, it will be examined below.

3. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense, rather than for defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator first fighted with the intent of attack and went against it, the harmful act is a defense act, and at the same time, has the nature of the act of attack. Thus, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004).

According to the evidence and records duly adopted by the court below and the trial court, while the defendant and the victim have a dispute, the victim was tightly pushed the defendant's chest, followed by breathing the defendant's can be acknowledged, and the defendant prices the victim's face by gathering each item which was lost in loading a truck against it. Thus, even if the defendant received an attack first from the victim, the victim was the victim's price.