A. In regard to the misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B) [2013 Highest 1398] Case 2, the Defendant only told Defendant A to see that Defendant A was the victim W, and there is no fact that Defendant was committed jointly.

[2013 Highest 1790] As to the case, the Defendant: (a) had a fact that the Defendant threatened the victim’s Z to take the cell phone, etc., but did not commit the act solely, and did not commit the act with

B. Each sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, for a short of one year and six months, and for a fine of 300,000 won; Defendant B; imprisonment for a maximum of two years; and for a short of one year and six months; Defendant C: imprisonment for a maximum of one year and six months; a short of one year and six months; and a fine of 300,000 won) imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the instant paragraph (2) of this case, i.e., (i) the victim W, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, made a detailed statement on the background and situation of the assault and the conduct of the Defendant B at the time of the instant case, as well as the Defendant B, and made a specific statement on the background and situation of the assault and the conduct of the Defendant B, (ii) the victim’s statement together with the victim W at the time was consistent with the victim W, and (iii) the victim W was was friendly with the victim W, and (iv) the victim’s age was friendly with the Defendant A, and thus, it was deemed that the victim did not seem to have committed an assault against the victim A, as described in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment.

(2) [2] The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the instant case, namely, the victim Z is consistent from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court. As such, Defendant B, along with another person at the time of the instant case.