The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are when the victim's face was faced in order to prevent the defendant's defect about to leave FF (the defendant's relative), the defendant's act constitutes excessive self-defense or excessive self-defense.

Even if it is not so, if F suffers from a cardio-cerebrovascular disease due to interest in the process of wrapping with the victim, it can be died at the heart, so the defendant is at the victim's face in order to avoid an urgent danger, and thus, it also constitutes an emergency evacuation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. (1) In order to establish self-defense as to the assertion of mistake of fact and misapprehension of legal principles, the act of defense must be socially reasonable by comprehensively taking into account various specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the perpetrator’s act was wraped with one another with the intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the act of self-defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200), and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below.