The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim E (the misunderstanding of facts about obstruction of performance of official duties and the crime of injury), and the injury to the victim I constitutes self-defense (the misunderstanding of legal principles about the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a collective injury, a deadly weapon, etc.). The punishment imposed by the court below

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant expressed a desire to the victim E, who is a police officer, and went beyond the above victim, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of duties of the victim and causing injury to the above victim, as stated in paragraph (2) of the above crime at the same place as the date and time stated in paragraph (1) of the crime

3. In order to establish legitimate self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, where a certain act does not violate the social norms and the illegality is excluded, it shall be determined individually by taking into account the following circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (iii) to establish legitimate self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act must be deemed reasonable in light of all specific social circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, degree of infringement; and type and degree of legal interests infringed by the act of infringement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9307 Decided March 29, 2007).