The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense inasmuch as he/she takes dancing of the victim in order to escape from the victim's attack.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by 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.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant and the victim were sent and taken a bath with each other due to parking problems, and that the defendant was pushed down against the road in a state where the victim was pushed down and boomed, and the victim was found to have been at the time when the victim was frightd.

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as defensive act, given that the Defendant’s act was prior to an unjust attack that the victim satisfeds the Defendant’s head or satisfed by the victim.

Victims. The victims.