Defendant

The conviction part of the judgment of the court below against B shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1 by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, as to the point of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a collective injury with a deadly weapon, etc.) and violence against Defendant A, the Defendant did not inflict an injury on the victim A or assault the victim He, and even if not, constitutes self-defense. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (a punishment of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution in August)

B. According to the records as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Victims E (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged against the defendant in this case of mistake of facts, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, has inflicted an injury on E., and the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged. This judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below of unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant stated that the Defendant had a possibility to have a victim H at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation (Article 107 of the Investigation Record), ② the victim A consistently stated from the investigation agency to the lower court that the Defendant was the head of the fluoral disease, and the victim H made a statement to the same effect as that of the Defendant’s arms (Article 21 of the Investigation Record), and “A” made a statement (Article 70, 106 of the Investigation Record), and “E located at the same place” cited the Defendant’s fluoral disease.