All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant B’s act of damaging one’s own assertion by misunderstanding the legal principles is legitimate as it counters to the victim’s criminal act.

B. Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts does not have a fact that he/she made several damages of the victim.

(c)

Defendant

The Defendant alleged the F’s misunderstanding of the facts was committing the instant crime with the intent to resist the victim’s insult, and did not commit assault.

(d)

The sentence of the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable for the defendants to assert unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that his act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act in regard to the act of destroying an apartment living in the above Defendant’s dwelling, by putting the victim’s knicket on his hand and cutting off the net.

To recognize a legitimate act, the following must be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the benefit of protection and infringement; (d) urgency; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3000, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The court below and the court below recognized the following circumstances as evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial; (d) the above defendant appears to have committed the above act while making an objection against the contents of the demonstration rather than responding to the case where the victim was attached to the apartment house in his own residence; and (b) the above defendant was set up on the floor of the victim’s body and the consent of the victim; and (e) the situation and extent of the loss of the victim’s residence; and