The guilty part shall be reversed.

The judgment below

Public prosecutor with regard to dismissal and innocence.

A. In light of the legal principles, Defendants 1 and 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, deeming that the case where Defendant A was unable to make a statement in a trial court due to unknown whereabouts, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the admissibility of evidence with respect to the police statement of Defendant B, I and M, which did not consent to the lower court as evidence, as evidence. 2) Defendant A’s conviction as to the joint assault against Defendant B, was when Defendant B met with I’s her own scam. However, at the time of Defendant A’s her scamblance as above, Defendant B was in the state of leaving the I’s camblance, and thus, Defendant B did not assault Defendant A and F. Furthermore, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the charge that Defendant A’s escape from assault was caused by her escape and that Defendant B did not commit an injury to Defendant B, but did not commit a mistake in the whole part of the facts charged, and thus, it did not err in the lower court’s judgment against Defendant A and the lower court’s judgment.

In addition, Defendant B was unilaterally charged with M, and there was no injury in M.

Nevertheless, the lower court found all the Defendants guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

C. The guilty part of the Defendants’ joint conflict with N is prosecuted against N.