The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant unilaterally committed an assault from the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) and B (hereinafter “victim”), who committed an act in line with D, and was in line with the victim and B, and even under such circumstances, the Defendant continued to commit an act in line with the victim and B, and had been in line with the intent to block the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s above act is not deemed to have suffered approximately 84 days of treatment, and the Defendant’s above act constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense, and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The "act which does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, the illegality should be determined individually by examining the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004); and Article 21 of the Criminal Act provides that if an act is recognized as a legitimate act, the act must be recognized as a legitimate act for self-defense or other person's legal interests, and thus, it must be reasonable for the present act to be unlawful.