The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of this court on February 2, 199, on the ground of appeal: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective act, deadly weapon, etc.), since the victim first committed the defendant, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense and the defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim

A. First, in order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense should be socially reasonable by comprehensively taking into account various 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). In a case where the act of the perpetrator was committed with his intent of attack, rather than with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack, and the act of attack was committed with the intent of attacking the victim, and was committed against it, the act of attack was both a defensive act and an act of attack, and thus, it cannot be deemed an act of self-defense or excessive defense.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on March 28, 2000, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant, while making a horse dispute with the victim on the F Publication Board rooftop at the time of the instant case, was in drinking and extinguishing the victim, etc. However, according to the above facts of recognition, as alleged by the Defendant, the victim first endeded to the Defendant, and had the dispute with the Defendant, as argued by the Defendant, even if so, the victim did not have to do so.

Even if the defendant or the defendant was assumed at the time, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as merely a passive defensive act, and thus, the defendant's above assertion disputing this point is rejected.

B. Next, the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court according to the spirit of the substantial direct cross-examination that our Criminal Procedure Act adopts as one of the elements of the trial-oriented principle.