The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The court below found the defendant guilty of the damage of property, each injury to the victim G, E, H, and F, and each assault against the victim H and I among the facts charged against the defendant, and found the defendant guilty of defamation and the public prosecution against C as to the assault against the victim H and I. The defendant appealed only to the guilty part, and since the prosecutor did not appeal, the part of the public prosecution that the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal becomes final and conclusive, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the guilty part.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (political defense) the Defendant committed each act as described in the facts charged in the process of defending the Defendant’s property and possession in the building B (hereinafter “the instant house”) of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “the instant house”) in his possession without permission by the victims.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense to escape from the current illegal infringement caused by unauthorized intrusion, and the illegality is excluded.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In order for a certain act to be recognized as a legitimate defense by the misapprehension of the legal doctrine to constitute a legitimate defense, the act must be reasonable as it is for the purpose of defending the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Therefore, a legitimate defense against an unlawful legitimate infringement is not recognized.

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 legal interests infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the level of completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interests infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do2168, Mar. 15, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following can be revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.