2. The Defendant alleged the Defendant’s body three times, but the said victim did not get off the Defendant’s vehicle, and first carried the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s body was pushed down. Therefore, the Defendant’s self-defense is self-defense.

The defendant did not assault the victim E at least four times on the floor of her hand, and only prevented the assault of the above victim, and also constitutes self-defense.

3. Determination

A. It is common that it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense as "political act" or "self-defense" or "self-defense" by putting only one of the acts of the parties in the nature of both sides, which are the act of attack and defense, even if the act of attack and defense were conducted simultaneously between the two parties.

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/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, even if the act is not deemed a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to view it as reasonable in light of the social concept, unless it is deemed that the act is a new affirmative attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).

According to the defendant's partial statement, witness D, and E's legal statement, and CCTV images, the defendant is recorded in the facts charged.