The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant did not commit assault against B and H, and the Defendant’s act committed against C is self-defense, and thus, illegality should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

(1) In light of the relevant legal principles, an ordinary act of attack and a defense was conducted throughout the course, and at the same time, an act of attack and a defense was conducted between persons who conduct a fighting in line with the relevant legal principles. Thus, even if they appear to be fighting one another, barring special circumstances such as (i) a party unilaterally committed an unlawful attack, and (ii) the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack, it cannot be said that only one party’s act was a legitimate act for defense or self-defense.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on December 8, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do13927, Dec. 8, 201) reveals that the Defendant committed an assault against the victims, such as the victim’s arms and flabage, and flabing them out, and the body of the victim H, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and the victim’s knife and flabed up to the inner floor, and the victim’s knife and flabing them out, and the victim submitted only materials favorable to the victims as evidence. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s act was self-defense, i.e., the Defendant’s act of fighting with the victim’s body appears to have started with the victim’s body opened out of the entrance, and the victim’s investigation agency from the victim to the lower court’s court.