The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles) is not limited to the passive defensive act, but the defendant's act was committed in the course of wrapping with the victim, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant's act not guilty of the facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged, around September 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sought the victim D’s house at his own residence; (b) assaulted D’s son’s E (the age 9) on the same day to assist the Defendant’s home; (c) committed an assault, such as breaking the chest, skeing the Defendant’s chest and shouldering the Defendant’s chest and shoulder, against which the Defendant took a bath to E; and (d) assaulted the victim D’s chest and neck by hand.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act by passive resistance to defend D’s unreasonable assault, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

1) The instant case began in the Defendant’s house and the Defendant’s speech and interviewed the Defendant’s chest by cutting off the Defendant’s chests. At the time, the Defendant’s door was opened, and the Defendant’s door was closed at the time, and the Defendant’s door was cut back, and it appears that the Defendant left the e and the Defendant. Although D was derived from the fact that her husband’s son was sexual harassment from E, it would not be permitted to engage in the horses following the Defendant’s act of cutting off the Plaintiff’s arms, which were merely nine years of age, and her act was committed by carrying out her son and the Defendant’s son. However, D’s act is an unlawful assault and assaulting act.) Although D’s son’s hand over to D, the Defendant did not cause her hand over, her hand over, and her son’s hand over.