The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and mistake of facts) is that the Defendant: (a) with intent to boom the victim’s assault against the victim D, satisfe sat, fatd the victim’s fat, and fatd the victim’s face; and (b) subsequently, the victim’s satisfe sat, which led to the victim’s assault continued, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is just a fact that the defendant, in the process of lapsing up the hands from the defense vehicle in the process of a unilateral assault against D, who recklessly acted to the library staff, and the defendant had the intention to inflict an injury on D, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to inflict an injury on D in the process of the above assault.

Even if the above act of the defendant constitutes an element of the crime of bodily injury.

However, this constitutes self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, since it constitutes an act of considerable reason to defend the current infringement of one's own body.

Therefore, the facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime or no crime.

B. It is common that it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense to constitute “political act” or “self-defense” or “self-defense” by leaving only one of the acts of attack and defense at the same time, as the act of attack and defense was conducted through a series of acts of attack and defense at the same time.

However, if one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party exercises tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, even if the act seems to be a new affirmative attack, it can be permitted under the social concept unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack.