The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant

The pronouncement of sentence against B shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of sentencing, and Sentencing) did not have any fact that the Defendant’s back of B was shouldered in a glass cup.

2) The first deliberation type (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

B. Defendant B (legal misunderstanding and mental and physical disorder)’s act constitutes a legitimate defense or excessive defense, which is a considerable act to protect the present unfair infringement of the Defendant himself/herself.

2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The first instance court's sentencing (unfair sentencing) is so unfair that the sentence imposed on Defendant A is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. In light of the situation before and after the instant case (including the witness's statement that the Defendant cited the Jinjin World, the victim was interested on the floor at that time, and the witness's statement that the flag's flag's flag was memory, and that the flag's flag was flad with his own flag, etc.) revealed the evidence duly examined by the first instance court on the Defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficient to recognize that the Defendant inflicted three flag in the right part of B's right part of the Defendant's flag because it was flag's flag's flag's flag, and that there was an error of mistake as alleged by the Defendant.

It does not appear.

B. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion 1) The first instance court held that Defendant B’s act was derived from the intent of attacking the victim rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack in light of the circumstances leading to the Defendant’s act and the method of committing the instant crime. In light of the following circumstances, the first instance court did not accept Defendant B’s legitimate defense or excessive defense assertion. In full view of the various circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the first instance court also considered the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.