All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is just a passive defense against the victims' unfair attack, and its illegality is justified even if the Defendants exercised the force of force of force against the victims. This is merely a passive defense against the victims' unfair attack.

2. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence as a whole, that is, there was a dispute between the father of Defendant A and the husband of the victim He in relation to the ownership relationship of the instant futures trading hole, and the Defendants on the day on which the instant case occurred, the day on which the Defendants had been challenged with the payment from the customers, and they seem to have been fighting with each other in the process of the dispute, and even according to the Defendants’ statement, the defective victims were fighting by preventing the Defendants from having any defect due to the customers who want to be calculated by the Defendants, and it was beyond the Defendant A. In light of the relationship between the Defendants and the victims, it is difficult to expect that the Defendants’ act was done passive resistance in the process, and that the Defendants and the victims abused them.

In light of the consistent statement and the fact that the statement is similar to the statement of the case concerning the perpetrator in addition to the statement of the assault, the defendants can recognize the fact that the victim was assaulted as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. Since such an act has the nature of an attack as an active attack beyond the passive defense, it is determined that the act does not have the "reasonableness" or "reasonable reasons" as required in the defense of a political party.

Therefore, the same is applicable.