All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendants’ joint injury constitutes a legitimate defense to prevent the victim from committing an unlawful construction act.

Defendant

A The reason for appeal submitted by the defense counsel is not a prior aggressive assault but a defendant's passive defense against the victim's illegal intrusion and damage, and thus constitutes a legitimate act of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

“.............”

Although referring to the "political act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code", it appears to have asserted a "political defense" in the overall purport, and thus, it is judged on this premise.

2) Defendant B did not intentionally inflict an injury, and even if the intention was recognized, it constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable that the sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (one million won in punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendants’ legitimate defense assertion by the Defendants also asserted as to the lower court’s trial, and the lower court, taking into account the circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, comprehensively taking into account the circumstances in its holding, the Defendants’ joint injury does not constitute legitimate defense.

This part of the facts charged was found guilty.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in this part of the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding Defendant B’s intentional denial of intent and the assertion of a legitimate act, there is no particular doubt as to whether Defendant B’s joint act of injury was actually recognized, and the circumstances leading up to such recognition are considered, but the means, method and type of the act.