The remaining parts of the judgment of the court below, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, and the second judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) With regard to the fact of an injury as stipulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the misunderstanding of Facts (the judgment of the court of first instance), there is no fact that the victim J or C was injured by mistake of fact, and there is no fact that the victim C was committed in relation to the fact of the bareboat intrusion as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and there is no fact that the victim C was assaulted in relation to the fact of the 4th assault as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. 2) Even if it is acknowledged that the above assault against the victim C was committed, it constitutes self-defense

B. The punishment of unfair sentencing (as against the judgment of the court of first instance: 10 months, and 2 months: Imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by each court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the court of first and second instance rendered a separate examination to the defendant in Incheon District Court Decision 2013Kadan892 and 2013Kadan3034, which decided not to apply the case of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act as a result of the judgment, and the defendant filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the court of original instance decided not to concurrently deliberate on the above two cases. The first and second crimes against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the sentence of sentence is to be determined within the scope of punishment determined by applying the precedent of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, since the sentence of sentence is determined within the scope of punishment determined by applying the precedent of concurrent crimes under Article 38 of the Criminal Act, the remaining parts of the court of first instance, excluding the part of rejection of

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. Each injury is assessed against the mistake of facts.