The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) and evidence by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act constituted self-defense to defend the victim’s act of intrusion upon residence.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with respect to changes in indictments as follows. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

In this paragraph, we examine this.

After the change of the facts charged, the Defendants were investigated by the police as follows: “The Defendants were aware of the victim D (the age of 45) with his husband and wife, and the victim D (the age of 45) knew in the same Dong N. On May 23, 2012, at E E located in Suwon-si F, the Defendants reported that the victim was together with E, which was the victim, and determined as “the victim was flick and flicker,” and the victim was flicked with “the victim was flick and flick,” and the victim was flick and flicked by assaulting the victim and flicked with the victim. The Defendants was investigated by the police with the victim’s report, and the victim was flick and flicked with the victim’s flick and flicked with the victim “A was flicked with the victim’s flick and flicked with the victim.”

B. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts