Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ act constitutes a considerable act permitted under the self-defense and social concept. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the victim D and the victim E, the defendant A and the defendant B respectively.

Defendant

A around 15:10 on May 4, 2012, around 15:10, the G Mata located in the Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, for the reason that the said D discharges his daily sewage in his own orchard, and caused damage to the character of other parts of the said D, which require treatment for about 10 days, by sating the fat of father own orchard, on the ground that the said D discharges the daily sewage in his own orchard.

B. Defendant B is the above.

At the same time as in the same paragraph, the victim E is more bad in terms of ‘the victim E'. It said that the fighting is ‘I will not think of the fighting,' and the head debt of the above E is flick, and as a hand, the blick damage of the two flick, the blick flick, and the tensions that require treatment for about 10 days in consideration of 3-4 times blick.

3. Determination

A. In common, it is difficult to view the act of attack and defense committed by a person who conducts a fighting in accordance with the relevant law as constituting “political act” or “self-defense” or “self-defense” by leaving only one of the acts of the parties concerned at the same time, because the act of attack and defense have the nature of both areas, which are the act of attack. However, even if it appears to be one of the fightings, in fact, one of the parties unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and to escape it.