The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: although the defendant was wald with the victims due to the three-dimensional problem, there was no fact that the victim walds walds walds walds were used by the victim F at the time of the victim F, and even if there was an excessive amount of family victims, this constitutes self-defense because the other party walds walds walds at the defense level.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the relevant legal doctrine, the act of defense should be socially reasonable in light of all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc. In a case where it is reasonable to deem that the act of the perpetrator was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of attacking the victim's unfair attack, and that the act of attack was committed with the intent of attacking the victim, and that the act was committed against the attacking one another, the act has the character of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense. Therefore, it cannot be deemed as self

(Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004)

B. (1) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

(A) The victim C stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “The victim F was in the victim F while getting on and off the taxi of the defendant, and the victim F was asked to her clothes from the back seat, and the defendant was tightly sealed by C, and C was pushed off by the defendant when the defendant was pushed off at the left sloping of C. B before leaving the sloping, F was seen to fit with the defendant with her sonl and her sonl with him, and even after leaving the sloping back, F was considered to have fledd with F and her son.”