The defendant shall be innocent.

1. At around 19:20 on June 13, 2017, the Defendant 19:20, at the Dgymnae-dong-dong-dong-dong-si B 10th century (Nam, 43 years old)’s Dgymna-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and at the Dgymna-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu (hereinafter referred to as “sports-dong-dong-dong-gu”), the Defendant was faced with the terms and conditions of the terms and conditions of the contract in the process of taking a gymna-dong-gu-gu entrance, and caused the Defendant’s refusal

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted the victim C, and put the victim E in a spambling event requiring two weeks of medical treatment.

2. Determination

A. The act of attack and defense committed by a person who fights in response to the point of the assault, and at the same time, the act of attack and defense was committed, and thus, it is common that it is difficult to view the act as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense by leaving only one of the acts of the parties as an act of attack, at the same time.

However, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from this attack, unless it is evaluated as a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to allow under the social concept and its illegality is avoided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010; 99Do3377, Oct. 12, 1999). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, the Defendant and the fish control officer, 390,000 won, and paid time money, and Defendant was pushed out of the sports hall while interfering with his/her business, and Defendant was pushed out of the sports hall by interfering with his/her business.