The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The following cannot be viewed as self-defense: (a) the Defendant’s act of breathing the breath of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios and mistake of facts) goes beyond the bounds of passive defense and going beyond the bounds of active anti-infence

Defendant

According to the statements of E, the defendant can recognize the fact that he has damaged the victim.

2. Determination:

A. It is common that it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense as constituting “political act” or “self-defense” or “self-defense” inasmuch as an act of attack and defense was conducted repeatedly between the fighting parties, and the act of attack and defense simultaneously constituted both areas, which are the act of attack and the act of attack.

However, if one party unilaterally commits an unlawful attack and the other party uses tangible force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from such attack, unless it is evaluated as a new active attack, it is reasonable to recognize illegality as being permissible under social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the victim spabling in the form of flab, and the defendant spathing in the form of flab, etc. of the victim. Accordingly, in full view of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s flabing and dispute with the victim, the Defendant’s act after the flabing of flab, etc., as seen above, is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s act of flabing in the form of flab as an act of resistance beyond the victim’s protection and its act of resistance.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is to the same purport.