All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim first saw the Defendant A’s batfat, and the Defendant B fighting his body with the victim to defend it, and the Defendant A suffered the victim’s loss, etc., and such Defendants’ harmful act constitutes self-defense.

The case was punished for about 30 seconds, and the defendant A was not off or out of the victim's infringement, and since the victim and witness I's testimony was not reliable because they were the body or consistency, the court below held that the harmful act by the defendants does not constitute a justifiable act as an active attack. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendants’ act was committed as an affirmative attack beyond the limit of passive defense in light of the following: (a) the Defendants’ self-defense assertion was dismissed on the ground that the Defendants’ act was committed as an affirmative attack beyond the limit of passive defense in a situation where the Defendants exceeded the limit of the victim’s act, or could sufficiently escape from the said act, and that the Defendants’ act was committed as an affirmative attack in light of the degree of infringement acknowledged by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the victim’s relatively consistent statements as to the situation at the time of the occurrence of booming from Defendant B, including the contents of the victim’s testimony and witness’s statement about the situation, and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendants A, etc.

B. 1) In order to recognize a certain act as self-defense as a ground for dismissal of illegality, the act must be deemed reasonable and reasonable to protect the present infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interests (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1520, Sept. 25, 1992). Also, a mutual dispute is raised.