A. Defendant A (Definite) was committed by assault from B only once in order to defend it. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the crime of injury by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B (nomenclature 700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., whether the defendant was physically injured by the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to the defendant A, i.e., the defendant's flabation of b, and the defendant's flabation of b at the time of this case, i.e., the police officer stated that the defendant's flabation of b, the defendant's flabation of b, the b's flabation of b, the injured part is confirmed, the injured part corresponds to the defendant's b's statement, and 3. The defendant denied the facts charged in this case at the court below and led to the fourth trial date to find that there is no labity and credibility in the confession (it is based on the defendant's voluntary will even if the statement was made once in accordance with the agreement with the flab). The defendant can be fully convicted of the facts charged in this case.

(Preliminary, even if the defendant's assertion was made by self-defense or legitimate act, the defendant's act is not a defensive act, but a mutual attack against B, and thus, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, as self-defense or passive resistance to defend an unfair infringement.

Defendant

B's argument on unreasonable sentencing is examined, and the defendant.