All appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The defendant did not commit each crime in the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Defense Counsel asserts to the effect that the first instance court’s punishment is too unreasonable due to the grounds for appeal. However, as the Defendant requested the appointment of a public defender on April 1, 2014 after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, it is not possible to submit the legitimate grounds for appeal under Article 361-3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if examining ex officio the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable.)

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the second judgment of the court below (1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles: the defendant did not have committed a crime as stated in the judgment of the second instance, and merely committed an act to defend against the attack by two subway security officers including the victim. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the second instance court which found guilty of this part of the charges.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the second instance court (a fine of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Two original judgments are consolidated in the trial, but each of the fines and imprisonment is sentenced.

The grounds for appeal against each judgment are divided.

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court of the first instance judgment, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.

Therefore, this part of the appeal by the defendant is without merit.

B. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court on the judgment of the second instance, this part of the facts charged is recognized, and the judgment of the second instance is properly stated.