Judgment

It is common that it is difficult to view that the act of attack and defense occurred between the persons who conduct the same fighting, and the act of attack and defense occurred simultaneously and at the same time, the act of attack and the act of defense constitute “political act” or “self-defense” for the purpose of defense by leaving only one of the acts of attack and the act of defense.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from this attack, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to allow under social norms and its illegality is eliminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). According to the evidence adopted by this court and examined by this court, it is difficult to recognize the witness’s testimony in light of the fact that: (a) the E, who was seated in a sofet as a matter of investment deposit, goes beyond his/her own book, and was seated after his/her book, she saw the Defendant’s fat, and fats the Defendant’s fat, and fats the Defendant’s fat and fats the Defendant’s fat, and (b) the Defendant made it difficult to recognize the witness’s testimony in the investigation agency and the witness’s e-mail’s fat.

In light of the above circumstances of this case, the defendant's act of threatening E is protected and protected by the defendant's act of threatening E from E.