The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the part of the judgment below on the ground of appeal against the defendant, the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense in full view of the following: (a) the defendant's act was caused by the harmful act of the victim A; (b) the principal harmful act of the victim was first caused by the defendant's face; (c) the defendant's act was strongly prices the head of the victim's body due to the two main diseases which are dangerous objects; and (d) the defendant continued to commit an attack, such as pressing the victim's name, although the harmful act was interrupted by the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's act was self-defense.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that “The Defendant, in the instant case, was injured by a knife as indicated in the facts charged by the Defendant’s unilaterally in the course of assault by the victim, on the ground that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense as a passive resistance to defend himself/herself from an unjust attack by the victim A, and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged.”

If the above judgment of the court below is examined closely in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just.

In addition, considering the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(1) The cause for A to commit a harmful act against the defendant is that the defendant has reduced the birth day of A, and the case is that of A.