On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the assault by the Defendant on the part concerning obstruction of the performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a interference with the performance of official duties by a public official in charge of transportation, and that it cannot be deemed a self-defense, and that the first instance court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged concerning the violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act was justifiable, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on self-defense, excessive defense, erroneous defense or excess defense, mistake of fact, and mistake of prohibition of illegality, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The ground of appeal alleging the illegality of the procedure for compulsory disposition is that the court below did not claim as the ground of appeal at the court below, or the court below did not consider ex officio as the subject of judgment at the court of final appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and even upon examining the record, the court below did not err in failing to properly examine

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.