The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, there was no fact that the defendant first used the victim to assault the victim, and the victim unilaterally used the victim to defend the victim, so the defendant's act constitutes self-defense and thus the illegality is excluded.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following, in order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that the act of the perpetrator was committed first with the intent of attack, rather than with the intent of defending the victim's unfair attack, and the act of attack was committed first and went against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228 Decided March 28, 2000 and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4934, Jun. 25

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim first assaults the defendant as the defendant's assertion, and the trial expenses are acknowledged, but in light of all circumstances such as the whole process of this case, the degree of violence by the defendant, and the part and degree of the victim's injury, etc., the defendant is not to defend the victim's unilateral attack at the time, but to defend the victim's unilateral attack. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense.