A. The Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act by passive defense to escape from the assault of the victim D or E (misunderstanding of legal principles). B. Determination of the lower court’s punishment (amounting to KRW 500,000) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant is too unreasonable (an unfair sentencing).

A. Legal principles 1) In the event of fighting between the defendant and the victim, the strike act constitutes an attack against the other party at the same time, and the other party's act cannot be deemed as an act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do3020, May 22, 1984). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are found: (i) the defendant was defective in the house purchased at 10,000 won from the victims; (ii) even if the defendant demanded the exchange once, the defendant demanded the exchange; (iii) the defendant demanded the exchange; and (iv) the defendant and the victim to return the vision occurred; and (iii) the victim D was pushed the defendant first while blocking the victim's head; and (iii) the victim was tightly sealed; and (iv) the defendant was able to use the victim's flad with the victim's flador by using it.

A statement is made, the photograph of the victim D after the completion of fighting is also appropriate, and 6 The victim E can recognize the fact that the monet is teared, and the fact that the monet was caused.

3) Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s act is the intent of attacking victims in the course of provoking each other beyond the passive defensive act to escape from an unjust attack.