The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act was a legitimate defense, since he was committed with assault, such as misunderstanding of facts A, misunderstanding of legal principles, flabbbing, etc., and resisted to escape from the assault.

In order to prevent the assault of Defendant B (misunderstanding of the legal principles), the defendant's act is a legitimate defense, since he resisted passively by breathing the breath to prevent the assault of Defendant B.

Defendant

The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court as the lower court’s determination on the A’s assertion, and the lower court alleged that B had flapsed by the Defendant.

Even if the defendant asserted that he was faced with B’s face face is enclosed with the intent of attacking one another, and at the same time, an act of attack constitutes an act of attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense. Thus, the legitimacy of motive or purpose, the reasonableness of the means or method, and the supplementary nature cannot be recognized, and thus, the defendant’s assertion was rejected.

It is difficult to view that the act of attack and defense conducted annually between the persons who conduct the same fighting and the act of attack and the act of defense constituted “political act” or “political defense” for the purpose of defense by leaving only one of the acts of attack in the nature of both parties, at the same time.

In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator was committed against it, the perpetrator’s act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense.

In light of the above legal principles, since the defendant's act does not constitute a legitimate defense or legitimate act, the judgment of the court below is just, and the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

The appellate court's unfair assertion of sentencing is in comparison with the first instance court's sentencing condition.