The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

1. The court below held that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense by excessively weak facts and thereby finding facts favorable to the defendant. The defendant's act of destroying the victim's bridge constitutes a new attack beyond his/her act to defend himself/herself. Thus, it does not constitute self-defense.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a taxi engineer, and the victim C (year 45) is engaged in self-business.

The defendant, around 02:20 on April 25, 2013, operated a taxi on the street in front of the Sungnam-dong 2129 Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong around 02:20.

In order to make a right-hand, the victim changed the car in the future.

Accordingly, the victim of play has a warning against the defendant.

The driver shall prepare and take a bath for each other, and he/she has become a vision.

Accordingly, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as “intestines, tensions, etc.,” which require approximately three weeks of medical treatment, by putting the victim’s body and booming the victim beyond the victim.

3. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the victim set off a taxi in front of the victim’s vehicle in order to resist the Defendant’s flaps; (b) the victim flabed in the course of the taxi that the Defendant driven by the Defendant; and (c) the victim flabed in the time when the victim took a bath on both the Defendant and the victim coming from the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant attempted to flab the victim’s hand with the Defendant’s hand when she talked about flabing the flab; and (d) the victim flabed the victim’s body to flab and flab the victim’s flab; and (d) the victim flabed the victim’s body to flab and flab the victim; and (e) the victim exceeded the victim.