All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) Defendant B did not have any physical contact with the victim.

Defendant

A is only the self-defense of the victim in order to restrain the victim from suffering beer disease, or to escape from breathing caner from the victim. It is also self-defense.

2. Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of injury or assault” requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, where several persons are aware of another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place, and used it to commit the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430 Decided November 28, 2013). First, Defendant B’s statement is difficult to believe in light of the circumstances leading up to an accusation against the Defendants, and there was physical fighting between Defendant B and Defendant F’s witness of the lower court. The Defendants consistently asserted that “In order to prevent an attack by the victim, there was any fact that Defendant A has prevented the victim from taking advantage of the victim’s arms, but Defendant B did not have any physical contact with the victim.” Defendant B also stated the same purport as Defendant B’s witness of the lower court. Defendant B also took part in the assault. The evidence that corresponds to the instant facts charged is the victim’s statement and the lower court’s witness of the lower court. The victim’s statement is difficult to believe in light of the circumstances leading up to an accusation against the Defendants, and there was physical fighting between “F” 2 South and one female.

In full view of the fact that “the instant facts charged in the instant case was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt on the part of Defendant B, solely based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, is difficult to deem that the instant facts charged were proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt on the part of the Prosecutor.

However, in full view of the Defendants’ partial statements, the victim and F’s partial statements, and the description of the injury diagnosis report, the following are considered.