However, in the case of a political party's defense, it is reasonable to see that it is a misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim E, entering the apartment corridor, pressing to board the elevator, and the victim D entered the apartment corridor in the victim Eul. At this time, whether the defendant returned to the guard room and led to D, and the defendant went back to D, and the defendant prevented the defendant as above. Accordingly, the defendant was found to have been aware of the flapsing with D, and the defendant's flapsing on the chest part of Eul's chest by hand. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant did not assault the victims is without merit.

B. We examine whether the victim was a legitimate defense, and as seen in the above A., it appears that the victim did not assault the defendant first, but rather, the defendant did not have a physical fighting between the defendant and the victims by leading the victim to D, and that the defendant's act occurred. In addition, the defendant's act was carried out in contact with the victims in light of the circumstances and attitudes, and at the same time, the victim's act was a defense against the victim's attack, and it is difficult to view it as a passive defense against the victim's unilateral illegal attack.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense, which is a reasonable ground to defend the present unfair infringement.