The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

It is common that it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense by leaving only one of the acts of attack and the act of defense at the same time, because the act of attack and defense was conducted throughout the past, and the act of defense was in the nature of both parties.

However, if one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from such attack, it is not deemed that such an act is reasonable that it can be permitted in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the instant facts charged against the Defendant did not constitute a crime and acquitted the Defendant, on the ground that, for the following reasons as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed an act, such as booming the victim and booming him/her, to defend the unilateral attack of the victim who would have drawn his/her flaps and flaps, and that he/she did not commit any other act that could be seen as an attack against the victim.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.