A. Although Defendant B’s act of assaulting Victim H constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act in light of the motive, situation at the time, etc., the lower court convicted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Defendant C, Defendant C, and A did not have the intent to insult the victim J and H, and there was an intention to insult the speaker.

Even if considering the motive, situation at the time, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the grounds for appeal filed by the defendant B or C, within the scope of supplement of the grounds for appeal as stated in the reasons for appeal, and it is not determined separately as to the assertion that is not entirely stated in the reasons for appeal).2.

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant B’s act of assaulting victim H by means of spreading the water face of the paper cupped Cup as stated in the judgment below cannot be deemed to be socially reasonable in light of the type, degree, method of infringement, the completion of infringement act, and the type of legal interest infringed by defense act, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed to be a legitimate defense or legitimate act. Thus, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles by Defendant C and A, it is recognized that Defendant C stated that Defendant C was “the same spaws and spaws” in the victimJ and that Defendant A called “the spaws and spaws are seated as spaws,” respectively, and the above expressions are the social nature of the victims.