All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles did not err by misunderstanding the Defendants or assault the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

The Defendants’ act constitutes a justifiable act to suppress the victims of breath violence.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants and their defense counsel presented the same assertion as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the Defendants’ above assertion and its decision under the title “the determination of the Defendants’ assertion”.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is just to acknowledge and determine the above facts, and it is sufficiently recognized that the defendants jointly committed violence against the victim, such as destroying the victim beyond the victim and breaking the victim.

Even as alleged by the Defendants, there is a fact that the victim has neglected the disturbance of alcohol.

Even if we consider all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the developments leading up to the Defendants’ assault and the degree and attitude of the physical force of the Defendants’ use, it is difficult to view the Defendants’ above act as a legitimate act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, and the above Defendants’ assertion

B. In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court has already considered all the circumstances, such as the circumstances of the instant case, etc.