The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment against the Defendants is respectively disclosed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case D and E, Defendant A and Defendant B are married couples.

1. On May 4, 2012, Defendant A around 15:10, around 15:10, on the grounds that D discharges daily sewage in his own orchard located in the G Mara located in the Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, for approximately 1 minute of flaps, and flapsed about 10 days of flapsing into his own orchard, thereby causing damage to the character of other parts requiring medical treatment, glapsing, etc.

2. Defendant B said, at the same time and place as the above “1”, E is more bad in terms of “E”. Defendant B said, “I wished to speak on fighting with no think of fighting,” the head debt of E was laid down, and Defendant B, by hand, took approximately 10 days of treatment by taking about 3-4 times the clock with her hand, thereby impairing the sprinked sponse, sponse, and tensions.

2. In general, it is difficult to view that the act of attack and defense has been conducted repeatedly between the persons making a fighting match, and that the act of attack is a "political act" or "self-defense" for the purpose of defense by leaving only one of the acts of the parties, which are the two areas of attack, at the same time. However, even if it appears that the act of attack was conducted on the outside, in fact, one of the parties unilaterally makes an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape from it, unless it is deemed that the act is a new affirmative attack, it is reasonable to allow it in light of social norms and its illegality is dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). In other words, D operates G where this case occurred, and it is true that D received a request from the one of the parties from his/her daily life in his/her possession of Defendant C and C water.