The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not have any flabbbbage of the victim, and the victim took the arms of the victim in order to prevent the victim from getting out of the defendant, and this constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in the case against the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the former Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement. The act of defense as a requirement for the establishment of a political party’s defense includes not only pure and non-defense, but also anti-defense types, including active anti-defense. The act of defense must be an act to defend one’s own or another’s legal interest (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992, etc.). Where it is reasonable to view that the act of the perpetrator was committed first with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, such act constitutes an act of attacking one’s mental or physical nature, and thus, it cannot be seen as an act of attacking within the meaning of Article 208 of the Criminal Act or legitimate social norms.