All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The defendant's defense counsel with the gist of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in failing to examine the evidence by reproducing "on-site CCTV images" from the court from the court through the statement of grounds for appeal, which was removed on September 9, 2016.

However, the third trial date ( September 21, 2016) stated that there was no opinion on the result of the examination of evidence by the court below, and that the argument was withdrawn on the trial date on April 21, 2017.

A. Although it is not clear whether Defendant B made a mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal in the statement of appeal, Defendant B also made a mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine by taking into account the following: (a) Defendant A and his accomplice-related persons; and (b) Defendant B’s defense counsel’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on all the Defendants.

The Defendants committed the instant crime to defend the victim by assaulting the Defendant A first, and the Defendants’ act constitutes legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below (the defendants: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was done with one another’s intent to attack one another rather than with a view to defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that one’s act was committed against it, and thus, constitutes an act of attack at the same time, which is a defensive act, and thus has the nature of an act of attack (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 2000). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim’s act of attack is not a legitimate defense or excessive defense act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Feb. 3, 2016).