A. In a case where a person who caused a misunderstanding of facts was flicking to the Defendant by breaking the Defendant, and then harming the left side of the Defendant’s left side, the left side face, and ear, the Defendant did not have an intention to commit an assault against the victim solely by breaking out the left side to stop the Defendant’s unilateral attack.

B. The Defendant’s act by misapprehending the legal doctrine constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. The intent of assault is recognized when the person’s perception and intent to exercise a tangible force on the person’s body for determination of factual mistake is recognized.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of exercising force against the victim as stated in the facts charged and the intent thereof, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant’s act was also an act to defend the victim’s unfair attack in light of the following: (a) the Defendant and the victim made the same assertion in the lower court; (b) the process and content of fighting, the degree of mutual response between the fighting; (c) the injured party’s accident; and (d) the injured party’

more than 100

The act of attacking one another with the intention of attacking one another is an act of attacking and opposing one another and at the same time an act of attacking is an act of attacking one another, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate act that is acceptable to defend or socially.

The decision was determined.

In a thorough examination of the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Since even based on the witness statement (Evidence No. 1 No. 1) submitted by the defendant at the trial of the party, H did not seem to be a proper part of the victim's body following the trial, it is difficult to believe that the victim's statement was damaged in the course of dispute.

No. 3.