Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the defendant A.

A. Defendant A’s this paragraph and the following 2. A

Defendant A is referred to as “defendants” and Defendant B as “victims” in the paragraph.

1) Although the defendant of mistake of facts had the face of the victim B by drinking first, there was no fact that he inflicted an injury on the victim with the fire extinguishing machine, which is a dangerous object like the facts charged in the instant case. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s this paragraph and the following 2.B

Defendant B is referred to as “defendants” and Defendant A as “victims” in paragraph (1).

1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not contain any fact that the Defendant would drink the victim A, or when the victim’s arms and legs, etc. were used, and even if the victim exercised the tangible power, this constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against the self-defense or social norms as a passive resistance to escape from the victim’s assault. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of suspension of execution for June, etc.) of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's defense counsel by the defendant's defense of erroneous determination of facts as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant A has asserted the same purport in the original trial, and the court below rejected the allegation in detail as to the above argument in Paragraph 1 of the "Decision on Defense Counsel's argument" of the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.