The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the defendant misjudgments the face of the victim D once, it constitutes self-defense because it was intended to defend the assault of D and E, and thus, it does not seem to constitute self-defense, and there was no contradiction in the safety of E.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the statements made by witnesses E at the trial court at the trial court, the fact that the Defendant and D jointly wraped with each other during several times, and thereby, D suffered bodily injury, such as a franchis around the margin of the inside and outside of the inner frame where D requires treatment for about two weeks, can be acknowledged. The Defendant’s act at multiple times is recognized as an active act of attack beyond a mere defensive act, and thus does not constitute self-defense. The lower court’s conviction of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the facts, and misunderstanding the facts. 2) In full view of evidence and statements made by witnesses at the trial court by the witness at the trial court by the victim E, the Defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant damaged E’s safety while taking account of the victim’s face at the trial court.

Although the Defendant asserts that, if he was aware of E’s face by drinking, he would not be free from the face, and that he would not fall within the face, he would not be reliable in the statement of E, on the ground that he was not aware of the fact that he was a plastic, and that he was not aware of it.

The court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing shall be punished by a fine once on drinking in 2005.