The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the legal principles on the summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the guilty part of the judgment below), the illegality is excluded because it constitutes a passive resistance to defend himself from an attack by the victim, etc., which constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act which is reasonable in light of social norms.

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The act of attack and defense has been committed simultaneously between persons who conduct a fighting in accordance with the judgment of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and the act of defense has the nature of both attack and defense at the same time, and the act of defense is a legitimate act for the purpose of defense by either party only by resorting to either party's act.

It is common that it is difficult to regard it as a party's defense.

However, if one party unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from such attack, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack under social norms, it is reasonable to view that such act is reasonable and acceptable in light of social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010, etc.). According to the records of this case, as the defendant prevented the defendant from entering the church, and one time takes part in the body of the victim, which goes beyond the victim's face, not a passive defense for getting out of the other party's attack, but a new active attack. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the defendant's act as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

The sentencing of the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, which is stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Code.