The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the defendant had taken the direction of the floor of the Switzerland lease pipe while escaping from E and Si vision.

B. In light of the legal principles (based on the crime of assault), even if the Defendant had a pipe for ice lease, the above act threatened the Defendant as if she had a view on the part of the Defendant, which led to the Defendant’s act to leave the office of E and escape, and to restrain E, which constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against self-defense or social rules to defend unfair infringement against the Defendant.

C. The penalty of KRW 1,00,000, which was sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, since the fact that the above pipe was put on the victim E at the time and place of the judgment of the court below, and the victim E for assembly of the display stand, and the fact that the above pipe was used in the direction of the victim is sufficiently recognized (the defendant himself also recognized the fact that the victim was on the floor of the victim's right, and the victim stated to the effect that the above pipe that the defendant was on the part of the defendant's ship and bridge was on the part of the court below's trial)

B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is not for the purpose of defending the victim’s unfair attack, but for the purpose of attacking one another and opposing one another, the harmful act is a defense act and simultaneously has the nature of the act of attack, and it cannot be viewed as self-defense. Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004.