A. Defendant A’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as follows: (a) Defendant B put the victim at the front place along with the victim at the time; (b) however, the victim only avoided the Defendant from the same place where he gets off with the cellular phone, and there was no fact that the victim was at the time.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim’s statement is consistent and specific regarding the details of fighting and the situation of damage, ② the victim’s statement was followed by two persons after the arrival of the victim, along with the victim, and Defendant A also was confirmed through CCTV; ③ the statement of the victim was expressed that Defendant B would bear medical expenses through the victim’s telephone call, ③ the victim’s phone call, and ④ the fact that Defendant B found the victim’s intent during the investigation while the investigation was conducted, the instant facts charged are sufficiently recognized.

B. Examining the records of the above deliberation in light of the records, we affirm and accept the above fact finding and judgment of the court below, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In this case’s determination on the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing, other persons than the Defendants were also involved in assault against the victim, and the fact that it seems difficult to fully take the responsibility for the victim’s serious injury into account is favorable.

On the other hand, the victim is seriously injured.