A. In fact, Defendant A did not mare the victim’s breath, and took the back part of the victim’s breath because the victim took a bath by returning to the latter, and only took the victim’s desire to report and return it to the victim.

Defendant

B It does not drink be the beer who had been drinking rather than beer to the victim.

It is nothing more than eroding out. Defendant C’s knating the victim in the process of concluding the dispute between Defendant A and the victim, and the lower part of the victim’s back to the back of the victim is taking a bath for the victim, and the victim’s desire to report it equally and return it to the victim.

Although the facts are different, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendants.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (each fine of KRW 1.5 million) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts (in particular, the evidence was established at the place where the crime of this case was committed in compliance with the statements of the

According to CCTV’s video image, Defendant B’s beer with the victim and female employees who had been employed in the instant heading. Defendant A had a part of the victim’s necked several times with the invoice from the vicinity of the instant heading box, Defendant C was scamed with the victim’s hand, and Defendant C was scamed with the victim’s scam. Defendant C continued to scam with the victim’s scam, and Defendant A and C can be sufficiently confirmed to have the fact that the lower part of the victim’s scam was scamed by the victim’s scam, and the lower part of the victim’s scam was scamed (the lower court’s each of the instant offenses were all led to the Defendant’s scambling with the victim’s scam.). The above argument by the Defendants is with merit.