The defendant shall be innocent.

1. From March 3, 2013: (a) around 03:30 of the same day, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s head debt by setting up against the victim’s head debt, on the ground that the victim was aware of his/her promise to telephone within the vehicle parked in the latter part of the D Hospital located in the permanent residence C at around 05:30 of the same day.

2. The self-defense stipulated in Article 21 of the Criminal Act refers to where there are reasonable grounds for defense, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense.

Meanwhile, in a case where one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom even if the act seems to be a new affirmative attack, it shall be deemed that the illegality is dismissed as it is reasonable to allow in light of social norms, unless the act is deemed to be a new affirmative attack.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958 Decided February 11, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant’s defense act is deemed to have a reasonable ground in view of social norms, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, may be objectively acknowledged to have taken the head of the victim’s head in order to resist the victim in the course of responding to the assault from the victim and stop the harmful act; and (b) the degree of the Defendant’s damage caused by the harmful act by the victim, the relationship between the victim and the defendant, and the physical conditions, etc.

Therefore, the defendant's act has considerable reasons to defend the current infringement of the defendant's body.