The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act against the victim of misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the victim’s legitimate defense or social norms, and thus, constitutes an unlawful act. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the grounds for exclusion of illegality.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and one year and six months at the Seoul Southern District Court on May 28, 2014 for the crime of larceny in accordance with the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny).

7. 25. 25. Recognizing the fact that the above judgment became final and conclusive, the crime for which judgment became final and the crime of this case are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment of this case shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity with the case to be adjudicated at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. As such,

However, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. According to the record on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, the fact that the victim saw the floor while taking a bath toward the defendant is recognized, but considering the specific circumstances, etc. acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below at the time of the crime, the defendant's act exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from the attack of the victim and escape therefrom.

It should be evaluated as a new active attack rather than a new attack.

Therefore, there is considerable reason for the defendant's act to defend the present unfair infringement.

(b) does not violate social rules.