The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is true that the Defendant was closely involved in the victim’s timber, the victim, who was drunk at the time, destroyed the Defendant’s vehicle and aggressive speech and behavior against the Defendant, is merely an attacking one time to prevent this from being committed, which constitutes a legitimate defense, and thus is reasonable as permitted in light of the social norms.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Between the fighting matchs as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, an ordinary act of attack and defense was committed and defense was conducted simultaneously, and the two areas, which are the act of attack, are the same as the act of attack. Thus, barring special circumstances, the act of either party is a legitimate act to defend against them only by taking advantage of only one party’s act.

(1) In order to recognize a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement; (d) balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement; (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074, Apr. 27, 2006). According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, the part of the act can be acknowledged in the process of fighting where the defendant actively committed a dispute between the defendant and the victim, which is attached to the defendant's vehicle due to the destruction of the defendant's vehicle, beyond the passive act of the victim.