A. Fact-misunderstanding (2017 high 526, high 526 - Defendant’s assaulting the victim B) is nothing more than that of assaulting the victim, and rather, the victim was assaulted by the victim.

In other words, the victim was first getting out of stairs underground of the F building of this case, but the victim was assaulted by the following means that the defendant gets out of the F building.

However, according to the CD’s image taken by the situation at the time, the victim’s statement was recorded in a way that the Defendant opened and opened a door that the Defendant left underground prior to the victim. (The purport that the Defendant was unaware of the victim’s lower position is not consistent with the aforementioned objective facts, but even if the victim did not respond to the detection test, it is difficult to believe that the victim’s statement is in fact.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the remaining charges of this part of the facts charged which believe the statements of the victim with no credibility is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstandings (2017, 260, 2017, 395, 2017, 395 - The injury to the victim G 1, and the violence and injury to the victim I) 1) The victim G was merely a serious physical conflict in the process of obstructing the management of the above FF shopping district without any authority and illegally occupying the four floors above the building and leaving the victim out as part of legitimate exercise of rights.

3) In light of the above circumstances, each of the above actions by Defendant 1 is justified as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

(c)

The sentence of the court below (one million won in penalty) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too vague.