Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992; 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, etc.). In addition, in a case where it is reasonable to deem that an act by a perpetrator was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed with the intent of attacking one another, and the act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack.

(B) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228 Decided March 28, 2000 and Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do4934, Jun. 25

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, comprehensively taking account of the defendant's partial statement in the court of evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the victim is "F at the site of the D Tunnels Corporation located in Gyeong-gun, Seongbuk-gun, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.