2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone by the defendant was proved without any reasonable doubt as to the victim's flaps and hair, and that the remaining defendant's act, such as cutting off or smugglinging the victim's arms, constitutes an act for defending the defendant's improper attack and constitutes an act lacking illegality due to considerable grounds, or an act that is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms as a passive resistance, and thus, constitutes an act of blocking illegality.

From the investigative agency to this court, the Defendant consistently stated that the victim was in the process of removing the Defendant’s head debt by breaking the Defendant’s head debt, and only put the Defendant’s arms in the process of removing the head debt, and that there was no fact of dubling or head debt of the victim. The Defendant filed a report with the police immediately after the victim was abused by the victim.

In addition, in this court, the victim stated that the upper part of the part of the defendant's arms was incurred in the process of taking his arms by the defendant, and the part of the victim's arms seems to have been mainly sold.

B. On the other hand, at the time of the first statement at an investigative agency, the victim only stated the facts of flapsing from the defendant at the time of the first statement, but did not state the facts of flapsing (after that, the victim stated to the effect that the defendant first flapsing the victim's head debt), and in this court, the details and circumstances of flapsing the head debt from the defendant.