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. The Defendant’s act constitutes misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the victim as an intentional embankment, and there were reasonable grounds for such misunderstanding. Therefore, the Defendant’s act constitutes misunderstanding of facts.

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

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In order for a certain act to constitute an erroneous defense, there must be circumstances where the present urgent and unjustifiable infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest exists, and there must be justifiable grounds for such misunderstanding.

In addition, there should be cases where the actor believe that there is such a situation of infringement and wishes to defend it, and the degree of the defense act should be reasonable in light of social norms.

In light of the fact that the Defendant had sufficient possession to mislead the victim as a thief, etc., and that there was no human being during the night, even if the Defendant was in a knife and concealed place, the distance from 300 meters to 300 meters to the victim, the victim did not take any aggressive action against the Defendant, the Defendant used the victim’s knife, and the victim was the knife of the knife at the time of the instant case, there was an objective situation to believe that there was an imminent and unfair infringement against the Defendant at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to see that the defendant committed an assault to defend against such situation, or that the defendant believed that such circumstance exists, and the defendant's act cannot be deemed to be reasonable in terms of social norms.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do393 delivered on January 25, 2002).

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below: