1. The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A (e.g., a fine of KRW 3 million) are too unreasonable.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s reasons for appeal against the Defendant B by the prosecutor (based on factual errors or misapprehension of legal principles), the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, degree of both assault, degree of damage to the victim, attitude after the Defendant’s assault, etc., Defendant B’s act constitutes active attack and thus cannot be deemed as self-defense.

2. Determination

A. The determination of sentencing on Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether Defendant A arrived at the parking lot, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to whether Defendant A arrived at the parking lot, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.