The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to avoid falling from an attack by the victim D, etc., the Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, prices the victim D’s clothes at one time as a prior preventive act. This constitutes self-defense or excessive defense, and thus, the Defendant shall be acquitted.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a guilty verdict against the defendant, which erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below asserted that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act in the judgment of the court below. The court below rejected the defendant's act in light of the defendant's assertion and its judgment under the "judgment on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion" and judged that the defendant's act exceeded passive defensive act. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Furthermore, as long as the defendant's act has the nature of an attack, it cannot be viewed as an excessive defense act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015