The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A1 did not have inflicted an injury on the victim E, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not have intention to inflict an injury on the victim, and there was no relation between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s injury, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate defense against the victim’s unilateral attack, but the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending of legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to Defendant A’s assertion 1) was based on the following circumstances, i.e., the victim E, who consistently fell with the Defendant, and was injured by the Defendant while consistently taking account of the adopted evidence:

(2) According to CCTV image data, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant and the Victim E can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the Victim E, such as the statement in this part of the facts charged, in full view of the following: (b) the head of the space where the Defendant and the Victim E can be confirmed; and (c) the existence of photographs of the damaged parts of

The decision was determined.

B) Examining the above facts in light of the records of the above deliberation, we agree with the above facts finding and determination by the court below, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

2) It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is an initial criminal who has no criminal history.

However, the victims and victims are not good enough to commit the crime of this case, and up to the time of the trial.