The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant rootsed the Defendant’s arms and applied the Defendant’s arms to C in succession to C, and did not inflict bodily injury upon C by committing assault as described in the facts charged in this case.

In addition, although the above act of the defendant constitutes self-defense to defend C's assault, it constitutes self-defense, the court below convicted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts.

2. Determination

A. On October 19, 2013, the Defendant, at around 21:20, injured the victim C(30 years of age) of the instant charges on the ground that the Defendant was waiting for bus at the bus stop at the Gosung-nam-nam Housing site, Gosung-dong, Gosung-nam apartment site, and New Scartoo apartment site at the bus stop, which caused two times the face of the said C by drinking during the dispute, while waiting for the bus, and caused the Defendant to walk up the her chest, and caused approximately six weeks of the 2nd part of the 1st part of the 2nd part, which requires approximately six weeks of treatment.

B. It is common sense that, between persons who conduct a fighting match in line with the legal principles, an attack and a defense act has been conducted consecutively, and the defense act is simultaneously conducted, and it is difficult to view that the act constitutes a “political act” or a “self-defense” for the purpose of defense by leaving only one of the acts of the parties, which are the two areas of attack.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, even if the act is deemed a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to view it as a new affirmative attack in light of social norms and thus, illegality is avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).

The court below duly adopted and investigated the judgment of the court below.