1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant jointly with the non-indicted 1 and she saw the victim's house located in Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter omitted) around 21:00 on May 18, 1983 that the defendant 1 spawns in a line with several persons and spawn and spawns in a line with several persons, and that Non-indicted 1 "it is not possible to spawn," and whether the same year is spawn and spawn with the knowledge of the back line where the commercial building is located in the back," and that he spawns in a two hand by drawing the victim's spawn, and the defendant spawn in a line with the mother's spawn and spawn, and the defendant committed the crime of violation of the law on the acts of violence, etc. against both sides and the punishment of the defendant.

2. The court below's use of it as evidence for the above fact-finding is clear by (1) the defendant's statement partially consistent with the facts of the judgment in the court of first instance, (2) the statement of the victim in the process of handling administrative affairs with the facts of the judgment, and (3) the statement of the victim in the process of handling administrative affairs, and (3) the diagnosis of the pre-trial

(1) However, the purport of the Defendant’s statement at the court of first instance is to deny the instant assault. However, the Defendant’s statement at the court of first instance may not be deemed to correspond to the facts of assault as to the intent of denying the victim’s knife while Nonindicted 1’s knifeing the Defendant’s knife, the Defendant’s knife, but this also does not correspond to the facts of assault as indicated in the judgment. (2) According to the record of the victim’s statement in the process of handling administrative affairs by judicial police officers, the said victim’s statement at the same time of the instant case’s case’s knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife, and knife, Nonindicted 1 knife and knife Nonindicted 1 knife the victim’s knife and knife, and the Defendant continued to kn’s knife and 1 k’s mother.

However, according to the record of the statement on the Dong person in the process of handling affairs by the judicial police officer, Park Jae-jin, who was in the same field at the time of the above assault, was absent the above assault site, and the victim's house was flicker and flicker, so the victim was flicker and flicker, and the flicker was flicker, and the flicker was born to the taxi at the time of the above assault, but he stated that there was no defendant, non-indicted 1 and her mother at that time, so the credibility of

Second, in the above statement of the victim, the defendant and his mother, the her nubage, hair, and knife from the 3 mother of the non-indicted 2, etc., who were the defendant and his her nulese, and were sexual assault such as chest, salute, salute, and salute. In light of the records, the place where the fighting occurred at the time, as well as Non-indicted 3, the husband of the victim, as well as Non-indicted 4, etc. who were drinking together with the victim, is recognized to have been on the spot, so it is difficult to believe that the victim was only subject to collective assault from the 3 mother of the defendant et al. as above.

Furthermore, according to the above victim's statement, the first time, Non-Indicted 2, the mother of Non-Indicted 1, and Non-Indicted 2, in response to Non-Indicted 1's testimony, the victim's fights, and it cannot be said that it is contradictory in light of the rule of experience to the effect that Non-Indicted 2, the mother of Non-Indicted 2, who was the mother of Non-Indicted 1, prevented the victim from leaving his fights, even though he did not go against the other person's fights on the part of the victim.

Third, although the above victim is designated as witness of Escar (the victim refers to Escar, but it is clear that Escar is a Escar, which is a misunderstanding statement) and Kim Nscar, it was stated that the above Kim Gscar was not directly scarb because he took alcohol, and that he could not memory the defendant's body at the time of Escardo, and that he was scarbly scarbly scarbly and scarbly scarbly scarbly scarb, he stated that he was the victim because he was scarbly scarbly scarbly scarb, and that he was scarbly scarbly scarb, and that he was scarbed by the victim since he was scarbly scarbly scarbly scarb.

(3) In light of the above various points, the above victim’s statement cannot be deemed as having been difficult to adopt a hot-line with doubt as to its credibility. Thus, it is insufficient to support the Defendant’s assault.

3. In the interrogation protocol of the accused in the preparation of administrative affairs conducted by judicial police officers, the accused makes a statement as follows. In other words, when the accused was faced with the appearance of the accused, the accused was faced with the appearance of the neighboring victim, Nonindicted 1, who was a female son, left the victim's house by resisting him. While the accused made a amp with the victim, Nonindicted 1, who was a female son, removed him from the house with the victim, and made the victim's husband and the head of scars, etc., on the part of the victim's husband and the victim's husband, she did not flick the flick, and she did not flick the Defendant's flick, and she did not flick the Defendant's flick, and she took the body of the Defendant's flick, and she did not go beyond the victim's 4th floor and the mother of the victim.

If one party unilaterally commits an attack even if it appears that one party commits an attack, and the other party uses a tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such unlawful attack and escape therefrom, it is the view of the party member's view that it is reasonable in view of the circumstances and purpose leading to the act, the means and intent of the act, and all other circumstances, which may be permitted by social norms, unless the act goes beyond the limit of passive defense, and thus, it is reasonable to perceive the illegality of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1440, Sep. 11, 1984).

If the Defendant, who was at the trial after having been put up on his her gram, immediately resisted to the victims who committed an act of disturbance, such as drinking alcohol at a neighbor's house and singing with a loudspeaker, etc., and the victim was at the time of drinking with the victim, etc., and the victim was at the expense of the victim, such as the victim, etc. under the above defendant's defense, and the victim was at the expense, and thus the victim was at the expense, as the victim was not dupliced, the above tangible power exercise of the Defendant is nothing more than the defense act as a means of resistance to escape from the illegal attack of the above victim, and it does not constitute a reasonable act that can be permitted by social norms in light of the process and purpose of the above victim's act, the means, and the intent of the actor, etc.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)