The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim, first of all, committed an attack against the Defendant by harming the Defendant, and the Defendant’s act is merely a suppression of the victim to defend it. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution and one hundred and twenty hours of community service in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are based on the following facts: (a) an ordinary attack and defense was conducted between persons who fight together with each other; and (b) an attack was committed simultaneously; and (c) the two areas, which are the attack. Even if they appear to be fighting, in fact, one party unilaterally commits an attack, and the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, barring special circumstances such as where he/she unilaterally committed an attack, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 201). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if one party’s act was committed with his/her intent to attack and oppose it, it cannot be deemed as legitimate self-defense by taking account of the victim’s unilateral attack and the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s adoption of the attack by taking account of the victim’s intent to attack against one another (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do28, Mar., 28, 20000).