The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not lick the victim’s flabbage with flabage, and even if flabing the victim’s flab, this constitutes a legitimate act as a legitimate act of self-defense or passive resistance against the victim’s assault.

Judgment

In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act as legitimate acts that do not violate the social norms, it shall be determined individually by examining the following specific circumstances. Thus, to recognize such legitimate acts: (a) the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) the means or method of the act; (c) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (d) the fourth urgency; and (v) the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do5077, Dec. 26, 2002; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003); and (c) the act of self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act must be deemed reasonable in light of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, method of infringement; (d) the kind and degree of the protected interests infringed by the act of infringement; and (e) the kind and degree of the protected interests to be infringed by the act of defense.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s act did not constitute self-defense or legitimate act is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is rejected.

In the court below, the defendant tried to block the attack by putting the victim with a dular by defending the victim's assault, but there has not been any assault by cutting dubs.