Defendant

A All appeals against A and the Defendant B of the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not intend to inflict an injury on the victim. In addition, even though there was no causal relationship or predictability between Defendant A’s act and the injury suffered by the victim, it is unreasonable to impose liability on the Defendant. 2) The punishment of the lower court sentenced by unreasonable sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor (defendant B) and, in particular, CCTV images, Defendant B’s act constitutes an act of defense at the same time as an act of attack and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate act.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charges against Defendant B. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s appeal

A. The judgment of the court below 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts also asserted as the grounds for appeal. The court below held that the defendant A had the same position as the grounds for appeal. The court below held that at the time of fighting the body of the defendant, the defendant could have had the intention of injury that the defendant might impair the physiological function of the victim due to doluss or the acts of the defendant, while the victim took a passive position to defend him, the victim had been able to capture or use his own neck, arms, necks, etc. by the above acts of the defendant, and the victim was diagnosed at the immediately Fa Hospital on the day of the case with the 2 mons diagnosis of the scambling in scambling with the scam and tensions of the victim and the scambling with the body of the victim.