The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that there is no intention to commit an injury against Defendant C, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and there is room to constitute a legitimate defense.

In order to protect the business place and customers by using violence against the victim and the defendant A et al., the victim and the defendant A et al., who are his/her his/her father and his/her father.

The punishment of the lower court (the amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to regard the sentencing.

With regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, special injury, and special assault, the prosecutor’s (hereinafter referred to as “understanding”) falls under the dangerous articles of Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below did not constitute the case.

In light of the above, the court found the defendant guilty only for the crime of bodily injury and found the defendant not guilty, and sentenced the dismissal of the prosecution on the ground that the defendant submitted a non-won letter of punishment for special assault.

The punishment of the court below (4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Defendant

According to the evidence of the court below, such as the witness A and B’s legal statement in the court below, police statement (Evidence No. 61 of the evidence record), CCTV reproduction and viewing result (the CCTV No. 5 trial of the court below 03:28:03:03:000 on the surface of the CCTV No. 1 which was reproduced and viewed on the date of the fifth trial of the court below) as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal by C, it is recognized that the defendant inflicted an injury on A by assaulting the victim, such as as the

In addition, in full view of the aforementioned developments and methods of assault, etc., the criminal intent of joint injury is recognized to the defendant, and the defendant's act with the intention of injury cannot be deemed as a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of facts or legal principles.

The defendant's judgment on the illegal argument of sentencing is sentenced to a fine on several occasions.