The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are facts that the Defendant committed an act of threatening the victim, but this is merely a passive defensive act to escape from an unjust attack by the victim and F, and thus constitutes self-defense or at least excessive defense.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act on the part of assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of legal interests infringed by the act of infringement, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004). The excessive defense under Article 21(2) and (3) of the Criminal Act constitutes an act of defense to defend an infringement of his/her or another person’s legal interests. However, the degree of such excessive defense means a case where the degree of the act lacks social reasonableness. Thus, if it is an act conducted under the intention of active attack beyond the intent of defense, there is no room to correspond thereto.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1089 Decided May 15, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 92Do1329 Decided August 24, 1993, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, in particular, according to the video of CCTV video screen screen screen, it can be recognized that the Defendant saw the Defendant’s arms with the intent to see the dispute immediately after the Defendant’s smuggling, even if the Defendant saw the Defendant’s arms, so far as the Defendant’s arms were unsatisfed, the Defendant’s act appears to constitute self-defense or excessive defense, given that the Defendant’s act appears to have been committed under the intent of attack beyond the intent of attacking the victim’s passive intent. In light of the Defendant’s nature and degree of the assault, and the victim’s act, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense.

Therefore, it is true.