The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence, such as the victim’s statement and witness’s statement, the victim’s misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below’s judgment), the Defendant’s act of flabing and pushing-ining the victim’s ebbb

Although it cannot be seen, there is an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the court below that it is an act that does not go against the legitimate defense or social norms, and thereby acquitted this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On September 26, 2017, the Defendant, at around 16:00, committed an assault by the victim with C in front of his her “I dynasium,” which had been in the Republic of Korea, with the victim’s fynasium, the Defendant dynasium, with his/her hand, dynasium with his/her bomb, and with his/her son, knick with his/her son, knick, hand

B. According to the evidence, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that is reasonable and reasonable in view of the legitimate defense or social norms, and thus, judged that there is no illegality, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(c)

1) Between persons who conduct a fighting match, the conduct of attack and defense has been committed consecutively, and the conduct of defense has the nature of both attack and defense at the same time, and the conduct of defense is a legitimate act for the purpose of defense in which either party's conduct is restricted only.

It is common that it is difficult to regard it as a party's defense.

However, if one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party exercises tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom even if the act appears to be a new affirmative attack, it can be allowed in light of social norms, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack.