A. Regarding a mistake of fact-finding joint assault, the Defendant did not take part in the assault only when he entered the victim’s house and found DNA images from the victim’s cell phone and PC, but did not know that A did not assault the victim at the time.

Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized the Defendant as a person participating in a joint assault, has erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the judgment.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the Defendant’s violation of unreasonable sentencing, the degree of participation by failing to directly assault the victim, and the motive leading to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's joint assault, ① the contents of the crime proposed by the defendant to the defendant, ② the role and act committed by the defendant, A, and C within the victim's residential area, ③ the circumstances leading the defendant to commit joint assault after leaving the victim's residential area, even if the defendant did not conspired to commit the assault against A, C, and the victim in advance, it is possible for A and C to freely check the contents of the Handphones and streets of the victim, etc. by using the opportunity. The defendant constitutes a principal offender for joint assault with A and C. The defendant constitutes a principal offender for joint assault.

The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts alleged by the defendant.

3. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, has an inherent area of sentencing determination in the first instance court. As such, no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing is made