The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal: (a) the statement made by the victim A (hereinafter “victim”) and the victim’s superior position and degree; (b) the Defendant unilaterally was an assaulted by the victim; and (c) the witness F’s statement in the lower court contrary thereto is not reliable.

Therefore, even though it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act has the nature of an attack as an active act beyond the degree of passive act of defense, since the court below acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged in this case by viewing it as self-defense or legitimate act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense or legitimate act, which affected

2. Determination

A. On July 16, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00 on July 16, 2012, at the Defendant’s residence located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si; (b) dumped the victim’s flaps; and (c) dump flaps and tensions; and (d) dump dump flaps and tensions that require the victim to receive treatment for 21 days; and (c) dump flaps and tensions; and (d) inflicted an injury on the right-hand part of the left-hand flap.

B. Even if the court below's appearance appears to be one of the cases where one party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself and escape therefrom, if the act does not go beyond the limit of passive defense, it should be justified as an act which is reasonable and acceptable by social norms in light of all circumstances, such as the circumstance, purpose, means, and the intent of the actor, etc., of causing the act, unless it goes beyond the limit of passive defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6843 Decided June 26, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11732 Decided October 28, 2010, etc.). In contrast, each of the evidence in the holding is a witness F’s legal statement.