The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this part, in the absence of self-help under Article 209 of the Civil Code, since the defendant's act of misunderstanding of facts (the fact of violence) takes the hand of the victim who brought a mobile phone of the defendant, takes the cell phone by cutting the victim's hand and takes the victim's cell phone one time by hand, does not constitute self-help under Article 209 of the Civil Code, and the illegality cannot be excluded as a legitimate act under Article 20

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, 40 hours of order to attend school, 120 hours of order to provide community service) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Around 01:50 on April 14, 2018, the summary of the facts charged (in the case of assault), the Defendant heard the victim’s statement that he was suspected to have received the approval of the president of the instant singing practice room located in Chungcheong-gun B, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheong-gun, by “CYing practice room located in Chungcheong-gun B,” and assaulted the victim by taking the victim’s hand on the form of the victim who brought the Defendant’s cell phone on the table, putting the victim’s hand, putting him away his cell phone, and making him go beyond the victim’s floor by being pushed off.”

B. Article 209(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A possessor may defend himself/herself against an act unjustly deprived of, or interfering with, his/her possession.” Article 209(2) provides that the possessor may, if he/she is a movable in the event of a deprivation of possession, recover from the perpetrator on the spot or in pursuit thereof. In addition, where a possessor’s act of escaping from his/her possession constitutes self-help, the illegality is excluded as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8110, Nov. 24, 201).