Defendant

1. A Defendant’s appeal is dismissed;

Costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

Defendant

2. B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant A’s sentencing division (a fine of KRW 3 million is imposed in the original trial)

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not inflict an injury on the victim, and there was a fact that the victim’s shoulder was tightly tightly cut down with the victim’s shoulder on one hand, but this constitutes a justifiable act against the victim’s assault. (2) Of sentencing and sentencing of the court below, the sentencing of the court below is a fine of KRW 3 million.

2. Determination

A. The first instance court’s determination of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was clearly erroneous without any objective reason that could affect the formation of a conviction in the course of the appellate court’s trial as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

In a case where there is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., the determination on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, such as the victim’s statement of damage, the background leading up to the issuance of the certificate of injury

Examining the above judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous.

There is no reasonable ground to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is considerably unfair as it is against logical and empirical rules, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of Defendant B’s assertion.

B. As to the Defendants’ argument during the sentencing, Defendant A was examined and the Defendant committed the instant crime.