207Do3443 Bodily Injury

(1) The section of this subsection.

Seoul Residence

Permanent Mayang City

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Do352 Decided April 25, 2007

August 23, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In general, since the attack and defense between the persons engaging in attack and defense are continuously cross-sectioned, and the act of attack and defense is at the same time, it is difficult to see either party's act as a legitimate act for defense or as a legitimate self-defense even in cases where one party's act is deemed to be in appearance, but in cases where one party unilaterally commits an attack and the other party uses tangible power as a resistance to protect himself and escape from such unlawful attack, unless the act does not go beyond the limit of passive defense, in light of all the circumstances such as the situation leading up to the act, its purpose and means, and the intent of the actor, the illegality is dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da984, Sept. 9, 1984).

11. 84Do140 decided Oct. 12, 1999; Supreme Court Decisions 99Do3377 decided Oct. 12, 199; 2007

11. See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7973 Decided 2006

According to the records and the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant is a woman of 60 years of age and the victim was a male under 43 years of age, who had a large sound at Dog Magsung located in Seoul at the time of the instant case, and the victim took a dispute with each other. The victim tried to attract the defendant's hand while the victim got a front line, and the victim was trying to attract the defendant's hand, but the defendant did not lead the defendant's hand, and he did not lead the defendant's hand, and the victim was able to see that the victim's arm's hand, who was 43 years of age, was the victim, who was talked with a large amount of sound at Dog Magsung, Seoul at the time of the instant case. Thus, the victim's action of this case and the circumstance surrounding the instant dispute, the victim's intention and defense before and after the instant action, which was not a passive defense against the victim, is an act of protecting the victim's unlawful attack and defense against it.

It should be viewed that it should be considered.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the defendant's act is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for exclusion of illegality.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik

Justices Kim Young-young

Justices Lee Ji-hun-*

Jeju High Court Justice Ahn Dai-hee