A. The Defendants (in fact-finding) did not inflict an injury on the victim as stated in the judgment below.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendants as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts.

B. Each act of the defendant A (legal scenario) in the judgment of the court below constitutes a legitimate act.

C. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of 500,000 won, Defendant B: a fine of 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion in the same manner as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment of the court below on the erroneous determination of the facts against the Defendants, based on diverse circumstances as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the above judgment of the court below, the court below's judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the Defendants. Thus, this part of the Defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. The "act that does not violate the social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act as to Defendant A's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles refers to the act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules, and thus, it should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, first, the motive or justification of the act, second, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, third, the balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement, fourth, urgency.