The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around March 22, 2013, the summary of the facts charged: (a) around 13:50 on March 22, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the victim by making it possible for the victim to return money to the victim’s hand, while talking about the victim E(40 years of age) and drinking, and talking about the investment money.

2. Determination

A. The defense counsel asserts that E was self-defense inasmuch as he brought a backenda dispute with the Defendant, and the Defendant got her back with his hand to get out of this, and thus, she fell under self-defense.

B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. B. the attack and defense was conducted annually between the two fighting parties, and the defense was conducted at the same time, and it is usually difficult to view either party’s act as “political act” or “self-defense” for the purpose of defense by deceiving only one party’s act. However, even if one party appears to have conducted fighting, in fact one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, the illegality is dismissed as it is reasonable to allow under social norms unless the act is evaluated as a new affirmative attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, (i) the E stated that “I opened a cafeteria entrance and returned investment money,” and that the Defendant tried not to lock down the cafeteria with hand while leaving the cafeteria, and added the table string to the Defendant.” However, the Defendant’s statement as to whether the table string at the time fell down down to the right angle is inconsistent, and see, e.g., the police officer, e., the investigation record.