The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment shall be suspended against the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A had a vagabonds with the victim, but there was no fact that the victim’s face was drinking. 2) Defendant B, first of all, had the victim removed the victim from the Defendant in order to remove the victim from the Defendant before the price of the Defendant A, and made a vagabonds in order to remove the victim from the Defendant. However, this constitutes legitimate self-defense or emergency evacuation as it is for the victim’s harmful act against Defendant A.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,000) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, in particular, as parking staff at the time of the instant case, and as a result of H’s investigation agency and the trial court’s statement that directly observed physical fighting between the Defendants and the victims, the Defendants and the victims came to park as a parking issue and the victim first became a parking issue, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the facts that the Defendant and the victim received a bife attached to the Defendant A after the price of the trees of the Defendant A, and then the Defendant and the

(2) In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ act was a self-defense or an emergency evacuation, rather than an attempt to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the Defendants’ act was satisfyed with the intent of attacking one another, and the act was committed against it. In such a case of fighting, the act of attack has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228 delivered on March 28, 2000, etc.). Accordingly, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

B. The instant case of unfair sentencing was derived from the victim’s interference with the Defendant’s vehicle from not less than 30 minutes by parking in a place where the victim should not park, and the victim first assaulted the Defendant A, and during the fighting process, the Defendant.