The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the fact that the defendant has lost his/her arms, but the victim did not have been injured thereby.

Even if the injured party suffered injury by the defendant's act,

Even if the above act by the defendant is intended to prevent the defendant from unfairly refusing access by the members of the victim and from exercising force, such act does not constitute a crime because it constitutes a legitimate defense or self-help.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the defendant and the victim C(65) as the members of the E church in Gwangju-gu, Seo-gu, who are in conflict with each other in ideology and monetary issues.

On January 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 16:40, at the entrance of the aftermath of the above E branch, laid down a catum, etc. requiring approximately two weeks medical treatment to the above victim, such as cutting down the arms and spathing the bat; and (b) spathing the bat at the entrance of the above E branch; (c) in the process of protesting and resisting the installation of a set.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a “self-help” or a “political defense” on the grounds that the Defendant’s act does not constitute an act to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of executing the Defendant’s towing activities, etc., but does not constitute a “self-

Based on the judgment of the court below, the defendant convicted of the above facts charged (the court below did not dispute the victim's injury).

We first examine whether the defendant's act was the victim's injury, and whether the defendant intentionally committed such act.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is acknowledged that the victim who was at the time by the defendant was at the time, was at the time, led the arms of the victim who was flabed with G and the victim, thereby harming G and the victim, and the defendant was also at the time recognized as having flabing the shape of the victim.

However, the above evidence and in particular, in the court.