The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not assault the victim’s face twice.

Even if there was a physical contact with the victim.

Even if the victim imposed an excessive taxi fee and forced the defendant to pay the fee, the defendant's shoulder and the defendant's shoulder was exercised, and the victim resisted against it.

In addition, the defendant is not obliged to pay the value without justifiable reasons, because he has been imposed an unfair fee, not an ordinary taxi fee, and there was an intention to pay the fair fee.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to the assault crime and the unfolding lane, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the lower court fully recognizes the fact that the Defendant used the victim’s face twice, and the fact that the victimized person did not teach the value without good cause, on board a taxi.

In addition, for a certain act to be recognized as a legitimate defense, it must be reasonable to protect the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest, and thus, it does not recognize a legitimate defense against an unlawful and lawful infringement. In such a case, whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2168, Mar. 15, 2017). Accordingly, according to the foregoing evidence, the victim sought to set the taxi fee and turn back the shoulder following the Defendant.