Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

Defendant

A The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles by Defendant B are merely a fact that he gets clothes of A, and did not spawn the bat like as stated in the facts charged.

Defendant

C also limited to the clothes of the front chest of A, and there was no assaulting the victim A with both hand by putting the neck of the victim A.

Even if the Defendants committed the act as stated in the facts charged, it constitutes self-defense to defend the victim A’s assault.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on self-defense.

The punishment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (one million won by each fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

B and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① found at the pharmacy where Defendant B and C had worked, and Defendant B entered the prosecution’s investigation, and Defendant B stated that “A had satisfed at the time, entered the pharmacy, entered the pharmacy, and entered the pharmacy,” and “A had satisfed a bat, and fatd A’s bat as low,” and ② Defendant C made a statement to the purport that he was pushed about A’s timber by hand at the court below, and the fact that there was a physical contact with the part above A was recognized. ③ In light of the fact that Defendant B and C’s testimony submitted immediately after the instant case conforms to A’s statement, it is recognized that Defendant B and C used a assault as stated in the facts charged.

Also, in light of the relationship between Defendant B, C and the victim, the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant case, the degree of assault by the Defendants, and the degree of damage by the Defendants, etc., the said Defendants’ act cannot be deemed as self-defense.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the above defendants guilty is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is just.