All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to legitimate acts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the acts of the Defendants were not purely defensive acts, which were committed during the fighting of the Defendants, and assaulted by the Defendants, such as assault by assault by the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. On February 19, 2014, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around 20:00, Defendant A committed assault to E, a merchant representative election before the office of the 3rd floor of the building D in Busan, and a candidate for support, (b) took place as a part of E (the age 52) and E (the seat of E) with his hand, and led to an assault to E for about two weeks of treatment; and (c) Defendant B committed assault to E, such as the date, time, place, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and place, with the above time and place, and put the right part of E in his hand, requiring approximately two weeks of treatment. In addition, Defendant B committed assault to E, and the right part of the part of E, etc. requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.

B. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act and does not constitute a crime, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

① In the process of Defendant A’s taking the arms of E in order to prevent this end, Defendant A, by hand, seems to face with the parts of E in the process of taking the arms of Defendant A. In fact, Defendant A suffered bodily injury, such as the part of the arms of Defendant A, in response to E. In fact, Defendant A suffered serious injury.

② In order to prevent the above behavior of Defendant B, it seems that Defendant B was netly excessive parts of E’s arms, and the Defendants merely dried up only the parts of E’s arms toward Defendant A’s face. Furthermore, Defendant B merely dried up the parts of E’s body.