The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was unilaterally assaulted by the victim, and he did not breath or assault the victim’s breath.

Even if the defendant's hand who attempted to avoid the victim's act was bucked with the victim's hand, it is a legitimate act that occurred in the course of passive defense by the victim's escape.

2. Determination

A. The act of attack and defense is continuously intersectiond between the persons who conduct attack and defense, and the act of attack and defense is also in the nature of both areas where the act of attack and defense is committed at the same time. Thus, it is common that it is difficult to view either party's act to be a legitimate act for defense or self-defense by leaving only one party's act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do3377 delivered on October 12, 1999, etc.). B.

In addition to the above legal principles, the court below consistently made a statement that the defendant and Si expenses were punished on the grounds that the defendant did not immediately stop the taxi while getting on and off the defendant's taxi, and that the defendant was injured by drinking bat and assaulting fat of the victim's face (36,37 pages of the trial record). ② At the time, E at the court of the court of the court below stated that the defendant was fatd because he did not have any signal even though fat was changed, and the victim was fatd and the victim was fatd. Accordingly, the defendant was fatd with the victim and Si expenses, and the defendant was fatd with the destination and opposite direction. Accordingly, the victim was fatd with the victim since fatd with the victim's body, and the victim was fatd with the victim's body and fatd with the victim's body and fatd with the victim's body, and the defendant made a witness statement to the purport that he was fatd with 4;