Defendant

A A A. Fine of 5,00,000 won, Defendant B’s imprisonment for August, and Defendant C. Fine of 1.

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts (C) does not contain any fact that the Defendant C was suffering from beer disease at the time, and thus, the offense of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.) is not recognized due to the use of dangerous articles among the facts charged in

(2) The misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant C) committed considerable defense against the other party’s assault, and thus, Defendant C’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) among the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes self-defense.

(3) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, community service work 320 hours, Defendant B’s imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, community service work 160 hours, Defendant C’s imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant C’s imprisonment and 1 year and 6 months of suspended execution, and community service 240 hours) against the Defendants are too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal against Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below) acknowledged that Defendant B threatened the victims as a scamer with a scamer with a scambling branch, and the act of threatening the chairs does not constitute self-defense, and thus, the above Defendant violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collectively

(2) The lower court’s sentence on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A” in this paragraph) has some unfavorable conditions against the Defendant, such as that the injury suffered by the victims due to the instant crime was not less light.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant was the first offender, that all the victims agreed to during the trial, that the victims want to take the defendant's wife, and that it is against the depth of the crime of this case.