All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A was unilaterally assaulted by B and did not constitute assaulted by B.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Although the Defendant 1 was aware of the flabbbage of A and pushed the chests several times, there was no injury on A. 2) the sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, i.e., (i) the Defendant was satisfe at the investigative agency, and the Defendant was satisfe at the vehicle, and the Defendant was satisfe at the vehicle (5,57 pages), and (ii) the Defendant also stated at the investigative agency that he was satisfe B’s body (42,57 pages). G police officers called at the scene of the instant crime were satisfe at the court of the lower court, and found that the Defendant and B were satched with each other, and that the Defendant was satfeed with their chest and that the Defendant stated that he was satfeing with the Defendant’s chest, and that the Defendant was satfed with the Defendant’s satch, and that there was no error in the lower court’s judgment finding that the Defendant was 78 satisfe.

The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, because it was aimed at defending the Defendant’s physical violation after the Defendant’s revocation of the grounds of appeal. However, in full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the above Defendant’s act constitutes an unfair infringement on his body.