The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as well as the victim F, was forced to have a physical contact by being subject to collective assault from 17 new “Emergency Countermeasure Committee”, including the victim F, and constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and sentenced the defendant guilty.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant was found to have suffered from the Defendant’s interview with Cridge affiliated with “D” to prevent the entry of the second floor of “Emergency Countermeasure Committee” from the stairs prior to the second floor distribution of Cridges, on January 5, 2014, in order to prevent the Defendant from entering the second floor distribution of Cridges. The victim F attempted to enter the said “Emergency Countermeasure Committee” with the said “Emergency Countermeasure Committee,” and the fact that the Defendant, who was in the said large situation, tried to enter the stairs above the stairs to enter the second floor to the said “Emergency Countermeasure Committee,” was the Defendant, with the face of the victim who was going beyond the upper part, and thereby, he was aware of the victim.

As above, there is no evidence to verify the Defendant’s use of force, such as the degree of force of the Defendant’s use, the background leading up to the instant crime, the motive, means and method of the crime, the present situation at the time, and the fact that the Defendant was an inevitable exercise of force during the course of leading the Defendant from the victim’s day (it can be known that the Defendant was involved in the assault, such as being pushed or boomed to an individual “Emergency Countermeasure Committee” on the 12:00 on the day of the instant case, but the instant crime was committed more than 14:0 after the lapse of 2 hours thereafter, and around that time, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as an act to defend the present unfair infringement and that there is considerable reason.

Therefore, the defendant who is dissatisfied with this.