The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that there was a dispute between the defendant and the victim prior to threatening the defendant by taking advantage of the victim's hand. At the time of the defendant's assaulting the victim, the victim did not embling himself/herself and went to the main place, and led him/her out of the main place by F. While the victim was under mixed influence, while the victim was under mixed influence with F, he/she was in a place where he/she was well aware of the victim's f, while the defendant was in a place where he/she was well aware of his/her f with the victim's f, and the defendant was well aware of his/her f. In light of the following, the defendant's act of drinking f. and drinking f., the defendant's act of drinking f. and drinking f., beyond the passive defense of the victim's unjust attack, can be seen as an active anti-defense act against the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below judged that the defendant's act of inflicting bodily injury upon the victim's chest by cutting breath and drinking breath as stated in the facts charged constituted legitimate defense and found the defendant not guilty, and thereby erred in the facts.

Judgment

For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) while E was engaged in a trial cost due to F and alcohol prices; (b) the Defendant appeared on the part of E; and (c) he threatened the Defendant as E left the house; and (d) the F went into the house to find a new threatened object by cutting off E’s arms; and (c) the F re-enters E into the house; and (d) the Defendant s/he s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/

In light of the fact that there is a statement and there is no particular treatment in the part on the part of the table.