Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is the fact that the defendant took the eye of the victim due to his fingers as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but at the time, the victim was injured by the victim while resisting the defendant's face with his head, being pushed in by breath, having his head, and faced with the defendant's injury during his resistance to escape from this point, and the above act of the defendant constitutes legitimate self-defense under the Criminal Act, as it is an inevitable means of resistance to escape from violence of the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case, which erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of the relevant legal doctrine is not for defending the victim’s unfair attack, but rather for defending the victim’s wrongful attack, and that the perpetrator first received the attack and went against it, the act constitutes self-defense. As such, it cannot be deemed as self-defense.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004).
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the victim took clothes of the defendant who was seated in the driver’s seat at the time of the instant case, and took the defendant’s face out of the vehicle, booming the defendant’s fright and frighting the defendant’s fright, and frighting the defendant’s face, ② the defendant took the victim’s face by hand, ② the victim took the victim’s frighting, ③ the victim’s snow blick, ③ the victim’s snow blick was sent to the hospital, and the victim was sent to the hospital, ④ the defendant was a minor symptoms compared to the victim, such as blsheshesheshesheshesheshed with the 119 emergency vehicle due to the victim’s assault.