The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant did not inflict any injury on D, or assault E or F, as stated in the facts charged.

B. Since the defendant's act is aimed at escaping from the threat of the victims, illegality is excluded as it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly examined by the first instance court, in particular, CCTV images and the statements of the victims (it does not coincide with the statements of the victims regarding the order or frequency, etc. in response to the victim's defendant, but it is evident that he/she or the other victims have clearly observed that they are in contact with the defendant.

In light of the fact that the victim F has no special relationship with E and D, etc., according to the victim's statement, etc., the victim's statement portion and the victim's injury diagnosis report (D received diagnosis of Madne and tension, etc. from the following day of the occurrence of the instant case) and the victim's injury diagnosis report, etc., it is sufficient for the defendant to have inflicted violence or injury on the victims as stated in his/her decision at each time and place as stated in the judgment of the court. Thus, the first decision of the first trial convicting the victims of all the facts charged of the instant case is justified, and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

It does not appear.

B. The first instance court held that the Defendant’s act does not constitute legitimate defense on the ground that the Defendant’s act of assault and bodily injury was committed during a fighting and at the same time an act of attack, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s act of assault and bodily injury was committed during a fighting, not the victims, and the victims took an attitude to speak for fighting. In light of the background and attitude of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act does not constitute legitimate defense.

The decision was determined.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court.