The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense, since the victim, at the time of the instant case, she first dumped the defendant's neck with his hand, and was at the time of her cumping. The defendant's act is merely self-defense.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. An ordinary act of attack and a defense is conducted throughout the course of an attack and a defense at the same time between persons who conduct a fighting match. Thus, even if they appear to be fighting one another, the act of attack cannot be deemed as legitimate act for defense or self-defense, barring special circumstances, such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself and escape from the attack, barring special circumstances such as where one party unilaterally committed an attack and the other party exercised such power as a means of resistance to escape from the attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011). Thus, even if one party’s act was committed with his/her intent to attack one another, it cannot be deemed as legitimate self-defense.

(2) The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of attack beyond a mere defense and it does not constitute self-defense. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s act constituted an act of attack beyond a mere defense, in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the degree of assault committed by the Defendant, and the degree of injury inflicted on the victim.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine, closely comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.