A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) had flabbbbbbage, etc., Defendant A’s flab and flab, and Defendant A had flabed in the process, and Defendant A suffered bodily injury, as recorded in the facts charged, and did not inflict bodily injury on Defendant B by b’s flabing blab and cutting over the upper floor. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts (the victim F-related assertion was based on the statement in the grounds of appeal, and it was not determined separately). The misapprehension of legal principle merely tried to legally obtain the membership’s qualification under the provisions of the articles of association and to participate in the general meeting as a member. Defendant B et al. prevented Defendant B, etc. from participating in the meeting and flabing a flab and flabing a flab with a blab.

Therefore, even though Defendant A’s act constitutes self-defense and thus illegal, the lower court found Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the judgment of the lower court, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts does not go beyond Defendant B’s smuggling, but is merely excessive in the process of Defendant A’s b’s epibation of epis.g., Defendant B’s head. In the process of beyond Defendant A’s head, Defendant A was somewhat shocked.

Even if shock is minor, there is no injury requiring 14-day medical treatment, and considering the attitude of overcoming, it is impossible for Defendant B to enjoy Defendant A’s backende with knee.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below.

2..