2. Determination

A. Generally, it is difficult to view the act of attack and the act of defense committed by one of the parties as "political act" or "self-defense" or "self-defense" by putting only the acts of both parties, at the same time, as the act of attack and the act of defense was committed between one of the parties. However, even if they appear to be fighting one another, in fact one of the parties unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, unless it is deemed that the act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable that it is permissible in light of social norms and its illegality is justified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles as to the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, i.e., the victim sought the Defendant from the Defendant, and committed assault against the Defendant, such as cutting down the Defendant’s timber from the Defendant’s back to the Defendant’s back and cutting down the Defendant’s entrance by drinking. Accordingly, the Defendant suffered bodily injury, i.e., damage to the part of the path, e., g., cutting down the part of the son who requires medical treatment for about 14 days. In the process, the victim continued to go against the Defendant’s neck in order to escape from the Defendant’s back, and the Defendant was removed from or spawd off the Defendant’s neck.