The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and nine months, and each of the defendants B and C shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant A: imprisonment of one year and nine months, and imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (1) misapprehension of legal principle: Defendant C’s act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense.

(2) Mental and physical disorder: at the time of the instant case, Defendant C committed a crime under the influence of alcohol.

(3) Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the Defendants’ grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

The lower court sentenced Defendant A and B to the injury carried with a deadly weapon, applying Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 257(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act to the co-injury, applying Article 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and selected each imprisonment with prison labor and aggravated concurrent crimes, and sentenced Defendant A to one year and nine months, and sentenced Defendant B to one year and six months.

In addition, by applying Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act to Defendant C’s injury by carrying a deadly weapon, Defendant C sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months.

However, since the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is imprisonment for a limited term of not less than three years, in order to sentence the Defendants who do not have any legal grounds for mitigation of punishment for less than three years, it should have been mitigated.

Nevertheless, the court below omitted this and sentenced a sentence beyond the scope of the applicable sentences, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, Defendant C’s misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of mental or physical disorder still are subject to the judgment of this court, below.