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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

However, the defendant.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (the part as to Defendant B in the lower judgment) carried the victim with dubage and flaps, and the victim unilaterally assaulted the Defendant by being injured by the victim during that process.

or the defendant's act cannot be regarded as a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant A suffered serious injury to the victims, and in particular, the victim E suffered serious injury by putting the hack pipe, and that the victim B additionally committed retaliation assault, the Defendant’s quality is not good.

However, in light of the following factors: (a) the victim did not want the punishment of the defendant when the defendant was in the trial; (b) the defendant recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects his fault; and (c) the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive or circumstance of the crime; and (d) various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is unreasonable.

3. The result of the fact-finding conducted by the head of the O hospital that the victim's body of the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor can be dismissed after several hours or days from the water point of time. The fact-finding conducted by the head of the O hospital alone is insufficient to find the facts charged that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victim. If the reasons for innocence in detail presented by the court below are compared with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in its determination, and contrary to the prosecutor's assertion, it affected the conclusion