The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles did not at all predicted that the Defendants would fight A with D, etc., and only attempted to fight between A and D at the site.

In addition, the Defendants did not attack K actively as to whether they had defended against A or their knife so that they could not cause any harm to A or their driving.

Therefore, even though the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate defense, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, and thereby, found the Defendants guilty on the ground that “The Defendants had already conspireded to commit the crime of assault and bodily injury against the other party’s act when participating in the fighting field, and the other party’s act was naturally anticipated to be in the commission of the crime of assault and bodily injury against the Defendant’s daily act as an attack or counter-influoring act.”

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment to the effect that “Article 3(1), Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” is “Article 261, Article 260(1), and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act” as the name of the crime in the trial of the party, “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” and “Article 3(1), Article 261, Article 260(1), and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act” was changed to “Article 261, Article 260(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act.” Since this court permitted this, the judgment below

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.