All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, ① The Defendant’s arms cannot be deemed to have neglected the victim’s arms with the rear wheels of the bus of the Defendant, with the rear wheels of the bus.

In addition, while one defendant gets a bus back in order to cut off the arms of the victim who kids the rear wheels of the bus, there is no fact that there is no difference between the victim's arms back with the rear wheels of the bus in the process.

② In order to seek the victim with the rear wheels of the bus at the time, it was the most appropriate way for the defendant to take the bus back and cut off the victim's arms.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded as an act that does not violate the emergency escape or social rules.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment without prison labor for six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service work for 120 hours) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment without prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) against the Defendant by the prosecutor is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In order to constitute “an act with considerable reason” under Article 22(1) of the relevant legal principles refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the current danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests, and in this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests faced with danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second victim must be the most minor damage. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the profit that is infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must be the appropriate means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006).