The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was aware of the fact that he had the victim's arms, but did not intend to commit violence. Furthermore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for excluding illegality, although the defendant was aware of illegal acts by falling under self-defense or legitimate acts.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that an act by the perpetrator of the relevant legal doctrine was done with the intent of an attack, rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed against the attack and thereby, the act did not constitute self-defense, since the act was an act of attack at the same time as an act of attack.

(1) The Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 200 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). Meanwhile, in order to establish legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the following requirements need to be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (d) urgency; (v) supplementaryness that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (d) to establish legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act must be considered to have been infringed by the act of infringement; and (e) to the extent of social self-defense that the act of infringement, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992, etc.). B.

Judgment

1. First, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is the date and time of the decision.