The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Defendant A’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: Defendant A (1) was found guilty of the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant was innocent, even though the Defendant did not constitute a crime of assault because the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate defense, since the Victim B was first deprived of the Defendant, and the Defendant went beyond the victim’s bridge to defend him. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Improper sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) found that Defendant B, a dangerous object, i.e., lost the victim’s face face, thereby causing approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the following facts: (a) at the first instance court, the crime against Defendant B was changed to “special injury” in the name of “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)”; and (b) the conjunctively changed to “injury caused by negligence”; (c) Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and (d) Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and (d) the conjunctively changed to “Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act,” and “The Defendant, despite the date and time stated in paragraphs (1) and (1), had the victim and the Defendant 78 years of age immediately fightd with the victim’s face at the time and place, and thus, (e) the Defendant had to take necessary measures to prevent the above injury.