The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant spawns the victim's head debt and assaults the victim's head debt may be sufficiently recognized;

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. In order to establish self-defense, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of self-defense. The act of defense as a requisite for the establishment of self-defense includes not only pure passive defense, but also anti-defense form including active anti-defense to the extent that there is considerable reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do9863, Feb. 28, 2008; 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992). The record reveals that the Defendant’s act of defense from around 3:03:0 on March 30, 2013 to around 05:30, from the victim’s vehicle parked in the place indicated in the facts charged, the victim’s act of defense against the Defendant and the victim’s act of defense against the Defendant’s head and her part of the victim’s body prior to the attack between the victim and the victim’s act.

The court below is just in finding the facts charged of this case not guilty on the ground that it constitutes self-defense under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Act.