Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's injury.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was at the first place of attack with one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was at the same time constituted a defensive act and at the same time constituted an act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed as an act of self-defense or excessive defense.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000).

We examine in light of the above legal principles.

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the defendant's act of defense against the victim among such defendant's act seems to have the nature of an attack against the victim at the same time, even if it constitutes a defensive act. Thus, it cannot be viewed as

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① From the police to the original trial, the victim himself/herself was also sealed by himself/herself, even though he/she had been sealed by himself/herself as well as his/her own, but he/she was faced with his/her head on the ground by putting his/her own scam over his/her own floor, and attempted to scam the Defendant again. The victim stated that he/she was faced with his/her head by spreading his/her arms and cutting his/her scam.

(2) Even though the victim's family-friendly appearance B did not directly witness the victim, the victim was satise first, and the defendant and the victim subsequently.