A. The Defendant only sealed the victim’s face in order to defend the victim passively in the course of assaulting from the victim, and did not assault him/her as stated in the facts charged.

B. Even if the defendant has abused the victim, this would have occurred in the process of defending the victim by assaulting the defendant.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes self-defense to escape from the current illegal infringement due to assault.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the defendant has assaulted the victim.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the victim stated in the investigative agency that "the defendant would have served two times as drinking from the defendant," and the defendant also stated in the investigative agency that "the victim would have served as drinking together with the victim" and "the victim would have served two times as drinking. I am head and drinking. I am head and drinking. I am. I am. I am. I am.)", and the facts of the crime are consistent with the victim's above statement at the time of the crime, the facts of assaulting the victim's face face can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. Next, as to whether the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, it is common that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes “political act” or “self-defense” as constituting “self-defense,” because the act of attack and defense was conducted by force and the act of defense was simultaneously conducted between the persons who conducted fighting, and the act of defense was also in the nature of both areas, which are the act of attack and the act of defense.

However, the two sides seem to be fighting one another, even if they appear to be fighting.