The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense as an act of resistance against the victim’s unreasonable violence.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, an ordinary act of attack and defense was conducted throughout the course of an attack and defense, and at the same time, the act of attack and defense was conducted. Thus, even if one party appears to be fighting, barring special circumstances such as where one party unilaterally makes an attack and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, it is difficult to view that only one party’s act constitutes legitimate act for defense or self-defense, barring special circumstances such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised force as a means of resistance to escape from such attack.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s act is an active attack beyond the degree of defense against the victim’s attack and constitutes self-defense, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in the misapprehension of legal principles is without merit. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense. The Defendant’s act does not constitute self-defense, inasmuch as the Defendant’s act is an active attack beyond the extent of defense against the victim’s attack and constitutes self-defense. The Defendant’s allegation in the misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the instant crime is not less severe, and the nature of the instant crime is good in light of the background leading to the instant crime and the method of the commission of the crime.