The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a situation where the victim, who stolen the Defendant’s ozone layer, drives the Oral Ba and faced with the Defendant, was faced with the Defendant, the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or an excessive defense, and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s act is avoided.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① The victim, who was faced with the back wheels of the vehicle driving by the defendant and the part on the part on which the victim was on board, immediately drive the vehicle and the part on the part on which the victim was on the part of the victim, was about to take the part on the above vehicle. ② The defendant attempted to take the part or the f of the victim who was on the part of the victim, and tried to set the part on the part on the part of the victim back to the back of the vehicle. ③ The defendant taken the part on the part on the back of the vehicle.

The victim who was standing on the off-to-land, began to do so, and the victim and the F told the defendant to the effect that "Magna" is "Magna," but the defendant is kneeing only when the victim is kneek.

The victim had followed the direction and knife ‘if there was a knife, kniff.'

After recognizing the fact that the victim did not assault the victim, there is an imminent infringement against the defendant at the time when considering the above facts.

In addition, even if it is difficult to see that the defendant was aware that he was getting out of the victim and that he was attacking the defendant, the act of assaulting ten times against the victim who did not set up against the defendant after the suspension of the Yabab was committed with the intent of attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense or excessive defense, since it did not have the reasonableness of the present nature, means and method of the infringement.

(b)in this case;