The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not know the victim’s knife or ppuri by taking the victim’s knife, and the victim’s knife is based on the victim’s king.

B. The instant case constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act by which the Defendant was involved in the process of reducing the losses of the victim that the Defendant had attached to his KONEX.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (the penalty amount of KRW 3,000,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant, as shown in the judgment of the lower court, took the victim’s grandchildren, can be sufficiently recognized.

In full view of the fact that the victim suffered no injury to the right shoulder in addition to being treated twice with salt pans, tensions, and scarkes prior to the instant case, it is difficult to see that the injury suffered by the victim was based on the king certificate, in addition to being treated twice by the scoke, etc. (see the reply to the order to submit documents to the National Health Insurance Corporation for deliberation).

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant’s loss of the victim, who had his KON, caused the injury as above, and that the Defendant’s physical freedom was somewhat limited due to the said act by the injured party.

However, in light of the fact that the injured party's injury is serious, the defendant's act cannot be seen as a passive resistance, and it does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(c)

The degree of injury suffered by the victim due to the instant case, and the fact that the Defendant did not recognize the instant crime is disadvantageous to the sentencing.

(b).