The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the gist of the grounds for appeal (the statements of the victim and the witness are all false, and the victim first tightly sealed the defendant's chest and booms the head, and the defendant's act goes beyond the stairs in the process of physical fighting with the victim in order to protect the defendant, and thus the defendant's act constitutes self-defense). 2. The judgment of this court

A. First, the first instance court’s judgment that believed part of the statements made by the first instance court as a witness was clearly erroneous for the victim and the witness H as a witness.

In this case where it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if the result of an additional examination of evidence was conducted by the time the arguments in the trial or by the time of the closing of arguments in the trial, the first instance court's decision which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on such evidence is justified and it is difficult to view that there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of facts affecting the judgment, etc.

B. Next, in order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable by comprehensively taking into account various specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the act of the perpetrator was carried out with one another, rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the act of the perpetrator was carried out with one another and went against it, rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, the act of defense is deemed to have the nature of the act of attack at the same time, and thus, cannot be deemed to be an act of self-defense or excessive defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant is deemed to have the same effect.