A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) In fact, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant did not conspired with other Defendants to inflict bodily injury on the victim Q as a dangerous object, such as chemical powder, garbage tank, and each item, and that it was impossible to anticipate such injury. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact that the lower court recognized the Defendant as committing a special injury.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

A. According to CCTV images in a fire fighting lot by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the point of special injury of Defendant E), Defendant E was found not guilty of the charges of special injury to Defendant E on the premise that the other Defendants were in the parking lot at the time of the price of the victim Q by each item, which is a dangerous object, even though it was evident that the other Defendants were in the parking lot at the time of the price of the victim Q.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant F: fine of 15,00,000 won; imprisonment of one year for Defendant C; imprisonment of one year and six months for a suspended execution; three years for a suspended execution; Defendant E: 10 months for a suspended execution; imprisonment of two years for a community service of two years for a suspended execution; Defendant D: imprisonment of one year for a suspended execution; two years for a suspended execution; two years for a suspended execution of one; two years for a suspended execution) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The conspiracy, which is a subjective element of Defendant A’s joint principal offender, is sufficient if there is a combination of intent to jointly commit a crime between accomplices. The combination of doctors is established when all accomplices do not gather at the same date, time, place, and are made in secret and impliedly, and even if they were not involved in the conduct, even if they did not participate in the conduct (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do767, Jun. 22, 1990). The evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and in particular, CCTV installed in front of Chhoe.