The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant’s act was an inevitable measure to defend the victim’s assault, and thus, constitutes self-defense as a passive resistance, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion. In order to establish self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into comprehensive 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 infringement as a whole (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the perpetrator’s act was frighten with his intent of attack, rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the perpetrator’s act was frighted with his intent of attack and went against it, the act has the nature of the act of attack as well as the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as the act of self-defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 200). Thus, considering the circumstances leading to the crime of this case and the degree of the victim’s attitude and defense, as alleged in the Defendant’s domestic act of attack.

B. An advantageous circumstance, such as the Defendant’s absence of criminal history on the allegation of unfair sentencing.