The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to three million won, Defendant B and C, respectively.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment; 1 year of suspended sentence; 1 year of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; 2 years of suspended sentence; 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to Defendant C1’s factual mistake, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) In relation to the point of injury, Defendant C’s act of damaging A in excess of A’s breath by setting up one’s breath in opposition against the breath of flaps, constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense or excessive defense.

② With regard to the point of special injury, Defendant C did not inflict an injury on B’s face by gathering a scam for each of the two weeks, which are dangerous things by Defendant C, and even if there were such facts, Defendant C’s act of taking a ice house out of the scam at the time of the instant case to go out of the scam for scambling, and thereby, Defendant C’s act of taking the ice house out of the scam for each of the two weeks to go out of the scam, constitutes the minimum defensive act, and constitutes

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A and B, Defendant A was the first criminal without any previous conviction, and his mistake is pened in depth, Defendant B did not have any record of punishment exceeding a fine due to the same kind of crime in the past, and the victim H was agreed after the instant crime was committed, and that Defendant B did not commit such crime again, contrary to his mistake, and did not commit such crime.

Considering the fact that there are different kinds of circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant A and B is unreasonable, and thus, the above argument by Defendant A and B is with merit.

B. As to Defendant C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.