In order to catch head debt, the victim's head debt was fluored with the defendant's hand, and the victim D was in need of medical treatment for 14 days, and other injuries were inflicted on the victim D, such as the brue and the tension of the detailed part of the trees whose head debt is unknown.

2. The gist of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion did not see the victim's head debt of the victim D (hereinafter "D"), and even if the head debt was collected, it constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense from the intent to protect the defendant from a D's unlawful harmful act.

3. Determination

A. Even if the relevant legal doctrine appears to be external speculation, if one party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself and escape therefrom, the illegality of an act that may be acceptable by social norms in light of all circumstances, such as the developments and purpose leading up to the act, the means and the intent of the actor, etc., unless the act does not go beyond the bounds of passive defense, should be avoided, in light of all the circumstances such as the situation and purpose leading up to the act, and the intent of the actor.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11732 Decided October 28, 2010). B.

Judgment

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant appears to have been able to obtain DNA head debt during the course of assaulting D. However, in full view of all the following facts and circumstances revealed by the record, the Defendant’s act continues to commit assault and keep the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s speech and humiliation, and the Defendant’s head debt, regardless of the detention around D, by taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the record.