A. The Defendants were co-offenders at the parking lot, which was the scene of the instant crime, and were involved in the instant crime at least in the manner of viewing the facts together with many accomplices, but the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that they did not have participated in the said crime on the grounds that they were mistakenly mistaken facts.

B. Although the extent of “joint” required for the establishment of a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act does not require each of the Defendants to exercise a direct assault against the victims, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted the Defendants by excessively narrow interpreting the meaning of “joint”.

2. The lower court, unlike the rest of accomplices, denied the Defendants’ participation in the above crime and did not witness the Defendants’ participation in the crime, on the grounds that the Defendants did not consistently participate in the assault from the investigative agency.

In light of the fact that the victims made a statement that they were not memory or memory, and the victims also stated that they were unable to accurately memory the victims, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case.

"When two or more persons jointly commit the crime under paragraph (1) of Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" requires that there exists a so-called accomplice relationship between them. They require that several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime using it.

However, the above reasons determined by the court below are recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, and ① some of the victims assaulted the victims by combining them with accomplices.