The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's consent to E in the process of fighting with the complainant at the same time constitutes an attack at the same time, which constitutes an attack, and thus the act of assault does not constitute an unlawful act. However, since the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's above act was a legitimate act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the self-defense

2. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act was satisfy with one another’s intent to attack the victim’s unfair attack rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against one another’s attack, the act is at the same time a defensive act, and thus, it cannot be viewed as self-defense.

(see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). Accordingly, if the perpetrator exercised a tangible power while defending the other party’s attack without the intent of attack, and if the degree of tangible power is recognized to be reasonable socially, it constitutes self-defense.

I would like to say.

이 사건을 보건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정들, 즉 ① 이 사건은 사장인 E이 점심 휴게시간에 피고인이 사무실 안에서 음악을 틀어놓았다는 이유로 피고인을 훈계하는 과정에서 피고인과 E의 시비가 시작되었는데, 피고인은 고소인에게 자신의 방에서 나가달라고 요청하여 그 시비를 끝내고자 하였던 점, ② 위 과정에서 고소인은 격분하여 피고인의 머리를 벽에 찧는 등 피고인을 먼저 가격한 점, ③ 위 광경을 목격한 K과 G은 고소인의 폭행이 일방적인 여성폭행이라 생각하고 고소인을 제지하고자 사무실에 들어갔던 점, ④ 고소인은 피고인의 직장상사였고, 피고인보다 10살이나 많은 남자였던 점, ⑤ 피고인이 고소인에게 가한...