All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding and legal scenarios (the defendant) did not assault victims, and there was a physical contact between the victim E and the defendant for domestic affairs.

This constitutes self-defense, which is occurred during the defense of the defendant to escape from unilateral assault of E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment (a fine of four million won) imposed by the court below, the defendant is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor argues that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the defendant's act cannot be viewed as self-defense.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, where there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined the above punishment by taking into account the following various sentencing conditions: (a) the victims’ physical and mental shock appears to have not been small; (b) the Defendant’s unstable mental state appears to have affected the crime; and (c) the Defendant’s criminal records; and (d) there were no changes in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment; and (b) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, and background of the crime; and (c) do not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or unab

A defendant and a prosecutor;