The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, there is a present unreasonable infringement, and an act to defend himself/herself or other person's legal interests, and there is a considerable reason. Although it is difficult to deem that the act of the defendant in this case satisfies each of the above requirements, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the defendant not guilty.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined that: (a) even though the Defendant intended to deprive another person of his vehicle that he would not drive under the influence of alcohol, D demanded that the Defendant unlawfully cut off the vehicle; and (b) the Defendant’s arms were not put up; (c) such acts of D constitute an unfair infringement against the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant caused injury by selling D in the process of spreading it.

Even if it is recognized that there is a considerable reason as an act to defend the current unfair infringement, it is judged that it constitutes self-defense under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Code.

B. 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 self-defense. The act of defense as a requisite for establishing self-defense includes not only pure hydro-defense but also anti-defense that includes active anti-defense. However, the act of defense requires considerable reasons as an act to defend his or her own or others’ infringement of legal interest.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992). According to the testimony and video CD of the witness witness D of the court below, the defendant was called to deduct the vehicle from drinking.