2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfy with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against one another’s attack, and as such, it cannot be viewed as self-defense, since the act was at the same time a defensive act

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000). Whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for excluding illegality should be determined reasonably and reasonably depending on specific cases. It must meet the following requirements: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected legal interests and the infringed legal interests; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary requirements that there are no other means or method than the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3029, Jan. 26, 1999). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant opened the instant World Cup on the victim’s Otobba, opened the container, made the victim himself/herself as the victim himself/herself and herself, she took the clothes of the Defendant, and thereafter had his/her body fighting between the Defendant and the victim.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and the attitude of specific assault against the victim, even if the victim first assaulted the defendant as the defendant's assertion, the defendant's act is judged to have the nature of attack as an active attack beyond the limit of passive defense. Thus, it cannot be viewed that it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.