Although the defendant was living together with A, he was able to take a bridge of his father and fluencing A's shoulder, the defendant was unilaterally assaulted by A, it was time for A to tell the defendant's wife by pushing the defendant's wife and to control A.

The above actions by the defendant constitute legitimate defense.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the reasons for appeal, the defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, was found to have inflicted an injury on A on A on A, “the salute’s salute damage to the salute’s head and other parts, the right salute, the salute, the salute, the salute, the salute, etc.,” by putting the salute’s face over the floor, several times, and the salute’s salute several times, as indicated in the judgment of the court below. It was time for A to have pushed the H, the wife of A, while being sealed with

Even if the Defendant was assaulted A prior to a clerical error in the field of this case, the Defendant was not only the Defendant, but also the Defendant was fighting in order to continuously wrap the Defendant.

Since the Defendant’s above act did not constitute a legitimate defense that resulted in the nature of an attack beyond the defensive act, and subsequently did not constitute a legitimate defense.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) The witness A of the original instance consistently from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, to the court of original instance, and consistently, “A during the dispute with the defendant, is a bridge in which the defendant has laid his balthic bals beyond the floor and taken the face by hand.