The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, made a victim’s head and fighting with his body, constitutes self-defense as an act to defend the victim’s attack.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of legal principles, in order to establish self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable, taking into account various specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of self-defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the perpetrator’s act was committed first, rather than for defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the perpetrator’s act was satisfyed with one another, and went against it, the act of self-defense or excessive defense cannot be deemed as an act of defense, since it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200). In light of the type and process of the act of this case, even if the victim’s act of self-defense cannot be seen as the victim’s attack or defense.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the defendant denies a part of the crime, and did not have any damage recovery or agreement against the victim.