A. On June 23, 2012, the lower court consistently stated that the Defendants, who acquitted the Defendants of the mistake of facts, were not aware of what part of the Defendants was assaulted several times in light of the fact that the victims were assaulted by several persons in the form of the victim, is natural in light of the empirical rule, and that the reasons why the victims stated from the Defendants that they were assaulted by the Defendants are the statements that “the Defendants, including the Defendants, participated in the assault” from AB, a witness, and that AB consistently stated in the investigative agency to the effect that all the behaviors, including the Defendants, were involved in the assault; the above statements made by AB are admissible; rather, the Defendant’s statement is reversed; rather, there is no credibility due to the reversal of the statements made by the Defendants; and B, an investigative agency that is an accomplice, was consistent with the facts charged by the Defendants, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the credibility of the statements made by the victims and AB; therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that the Defendants committed the assault.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 23, 2012, Q of the facts charged, around 04:5 on June 23, 2012, 2012, stated that the victim V (the crossing the road before the age of 33) was able to take a warning on the part of the victim while driving a vehicle to the place where his or her relatives, including the Defendant A, are drinking, while having set the lock well, and driving the vehicle to the place where they are drinking. However, on the other hand, the victim was able to take a bath for the reason that the victim is resisting the vehicle, and the victim was able to take a view, and the victim was set up several times due to the outbreak of the above vehicle, and W on board the vehicle.