The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of this court on February 2, 198 is based on a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (i) the Defendant did not shoulder the victim's finger, (ii) the victim first provided the cause of fighting and rendered the Defendant at the time of fighting, and thus the Defendant'

A. First, the first instance judgment that the victim believed as a witness the statement made in the court of first instance was clearly erroneous.

In this case where it is difficult to view that maintaining the judgment of the first instance court is considerably unfair even if the result of an additional examination of evidence was conducted by the time the arguments in the trial or by the time of the closing of arguments in the trial, the first instance court's decision which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on such evidence is just and acceptable, and it is difficult to see that there is an error of law of misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment

B. Next, in order to establish self-defense as stipulated in 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 the 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 set up against it, the act of attack has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of defense, and thus, cannot be deemed an act of self-defense or excessive defense.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant, while engaging in a conflict with the victim at the time of the instant case, she either spawds with the victim, or spawds with the victim.