B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Although there was a fact that the Defendant was suffering from an empty injury to the victim A, the Defendant was suffering from an empty injury to the victim, and there was no fact that the Defendant was suffering from an empty injury. However, there was no fact that the Defendant committed an empty injury to the victim A due to an empty injury. (2) In misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant’s act of suffering from an empty injury to the victim A was an act for the purpose of defending the attack of the victim, even though it was not reasonable, and was an act due to fear, rush, entertainment, or confusion in the night or other extraordinary circumstances. As such, Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act

(B) The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of suspension of execution to two years of imprisonment, community service 40 hours) by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, community service 40 hours) on the grounds that the sentence of the lower court (four years of suspension of execution to three years of imprisonment, community service 40 hours) by Defendant A and B (three years of suspension of execution to three years of imprisonment, community service 40 hours of suspension of execution to three years of imprisonment, and Defendant B: 3 years of suspension of execution to two years of imprisonment, community service 40 hours of probation to three years of probation, and community service 40 hours) is unreasonable.

2) Defendant C (the fact-finding and the misapprehension of the legal principle that Defendant C was saluted with two arms, saluted with the victim’s salute and saluted with the victim’s salute and prevented the above victim from driving. As such, Defendant C’s act does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous.