2. The judgment of the court below also made the same assertion in the trial even though the defendant had made the above assertion and withdrawn it, and in order to establish self-defense as stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the defendant's act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into comprehensive account various specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, the kind and degree of legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, as well as the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the complete payment of the act of infringement and the defense act, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the perpetrator's act was carried out with one another's intent to attack the victim's unfair attack rather than with the aim to defend the victim's unfair attack, and the harmful act has the nature of the act of attack as well as the act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act of defense or excessive self-defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000) In light of the form and process of the act of this case, degree of injury to the victim, etc., even if the victim first abused the defendant as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the act of the defendant, as described in the facts charged in this case, was merely passive defensive act, and rather, it is difficult to view it as self-defense or excessive self-defense because it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense.