1. It is common that between the two fightings, the attack and the defense was conducted annually, and the defense was conducted simultaneously, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the attack was a legitimate act for defense or self-defense because only one of the parties' acts was committed in the nature of the two areas where the attack was committed.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself from such attack and escape from such attack, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack by social norms, it is reasonable to allow it as a reasonable and reasonable act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do377, Oct. 12, 199; 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

The record reveals the following facts.

① The Defendant and the injured party are adjoining one another, and there has been long been disputes over land boundary issues.

(2) In particular, installation of urban gas pipelines at the defendant's house around February 2014.