Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Since a misunderstanding of facts is a safe device using a caps to the victims, there was no injury that the Defendant inflicted on the victims such as the time of original adjudication.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the statement of the victims without credibility, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of judgment.

B. The Defendant’s act of self-defense or legitimate act is merely an act of self-defense or legitimate act, inasmuch as he/she destroyed a stable gas gun to defend the victims’ assault.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that “the victims suffered injuries, such as acute stress response, etc. requiring treatment for a period of 61 days,” among the facts charged in the instant case, “the victims sustained injuries, etc. in each of the 61-day treatment, such as each of the 30-day treatment,” and the instant facts charged was changed to the subject of the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, whether the defendant was injured by the victims and whether the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act is still subject to the judgment of the court (However, the injury's degree and degree are judged to be changed in the trial).

1) In light of the legal principles related to the defendant's assertion, whether the defendant was injured or not, and the evidence duly examined by the court below, the witness of the court below is a witness.