The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is merely an act of defending Defendant B by assaulting A, who driving away from the romatic code, and thereby constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The ex officio judgment of Defendant A filed an application for changes in the name of the crime against Defendant A in the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial of the trial party to the effect that “Special Bodily Injury” was “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act,” and the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained any longer since this court permitted this to be tried.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B

A. In order to establish a legitimate defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). However, in a case where it is reasonable to deem that the perpetrator’s act was committed with the intent of attacking the victim’s unfair attack rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator was committed against the attack and went against it, the act of attack has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the defensive act, and therefore, it can be viewed as a political party’s defense or excessive defense.