All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, there is a fact that the Defendant misleads the Defendant as to the metal protection unit. However, unlike the facts charged in this case, the victim D did not fit the metal protection unit, and the Defendant intentionally took the face of the victim E into the elbow.

Therefore, the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victims.

2) The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is for the purpose of defending the current unfair infringement of legal interests arising from the victims’ unlawful performance of duties (violation of the method of using protective gear, and taking protective gear to inflict pain on the Defendant), and constitutes a legitimate defense, as there is a considerable reason.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court denied part of the facts charged to the same purport, and the Defendant’s act was denied. Accordingly, according to the records, the lower court asserted that the Defendant’s act was an act to defend the present unfair infringement.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the facts of injury can be recognized in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below. In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the above judgment by the court below is justified, and thus, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct determination of each of the unfair arguments of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, has a unique area for sentencing determination, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.