Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, first of all, abused himself/herself to prevent him/her from doing so, and this constitutes self-defense to protect the Defendant from D’s assault.
2. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Do2540, Dec. 22, 1992). The act of attack and defense between the persons who act of attack and defense are continuously crossing and the act of defense are also in both areas where the act of attack and defense are committed simultaneously. Thus, it is difficult to deem that either party’s act is a legitimate act for defense or constitutes self-defense.
In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3377, Oct. 12, 199). According to the CCTV image, the defendant and the customer, at the time of the instant case, are disputed as an agency fee, and as a result, D first did the defendant live in the shape, and after the defendant was unfated, he would have a face where D’s clothes were satisfed once in the shape of fat, and ② the defendant received 50,000 won from the police, and later stated that he was fated one times in the face, the defendant’s act does not constitute a case where the defendant defends the defendant against the current infringement of the victim D’s right or has considerable reasons for preventing such infringement.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.