All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant’s act of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is merely sculping the victim B or sculbling in the process of defending the assault by Co-Defendant B of the second instance judgment. Thus, this constitutes legitimate self-defense.

B. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (No. 1 million won, fine No. 200,000 won, and fine No. 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of ex officio due to the consolidation of cases, and the defendant appealed as declared by the court of first and second trials, and this court decided to consolidate the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first and second trials against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined as a single sentence within the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

B. In a case where an attack and a defense act were conducted consecutively between a fightingr who made a judgment on the Defendant’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the defense was conducted simultaneously and at the same time, the two areas, which are the attack act, cannot be deemed as self-defense for the purpose of defense by leaving only one party’s act.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did assault against the victim on the ground that the victim was recorded in a conversation with the victim B, and that the victim did not have his/her cell phone so that he/she did not have his/her cell phone. Thus, the above act of the defendant is the act of attacking the victim.