A. As to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) among the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant committed only once after arrival of the police officer, and the Defendant did not commit a bodily injury or assault committed by other persons on the same opportunity at the same place, and thus does not constitute a joint injury to the victim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (the defense counsel did not state this part of the Defendant’s assertion in the grounds of appeal, but did not state it on April 10, 2018 and on the fourth trial date). (b) Illegal sentencing (the lower court’s punishment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months).

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The phrase “jointness by more than two persons” under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the two or more persons exist in so-called co-offenders relationship. In addition, where several persons are aware of another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it to commit a crime.

2) The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below. In other words, the Defendant was aware of the above injury committed by the Defendant when he saw the victim D as the place indicated in the facts charged at the time indicated in the instant facts charged, and accordingly, the victim H was also at the same time and at the same time. Defendant B jointly in the court below was at the time and at the above time and place, and Defendant B was at the time and at the above place, at the victim H’s face was taken several times and flab, and he was at the victim H’s face.

It is reasonable to see that the defendant's domestic affairs, as argued by the defendant and his defense counsel, had been called up at one time after the police officer called up.