The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding related to the crime of the instant case on May 22, 2014, the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim G, and the said victim was assaulted by the Defendant, and it is merely a defensive defense against it. In addition, even in the case of the crime committed on August 7, 2014, the Defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim B, and only the said victim was assaulted by H at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the Health Team, the witness G’s legal statement, and the medical certificate of injury (G), as to the crime committed on May 22, 2014, the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the said victim during the process of gathering and saving bats with the victim G at the time.

B. In light of the course, method, and consequence, etc. of the instant injury, the Defendant’s act is an attack beyond the extent of the victim’s defense against the attack, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense (i.e., an ordinary attack and defense was committed between the persons who conducted the same fighting) and the act of defense was committed simultaneously, and the two areas of the attack, which are the act of attack. Thus, barring special circumstances, the Defendant’s act is a legitimate act for defending against the Defendant’s act by deceiving only one of the parties.

In the case of a crime committed on August 7, 201, by A.I.D. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011) and A.I.D. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do13927, Aug. 7, 2014), the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the witness H’s legal statement, shall be comprehensively taken into account.