The guilty part against Defendant A and Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendants each.

A. On December 22, 2013, Defendant A: (a) was unable to avoid disturbance by taking advantage of the fact that it was not a card calculation at the main point of “F” located in Seocheon-si (hereinafter “the main point of this case”); (b) Defendant A, the main point of which was the victim I ( South, 48 years old), saying, “I would be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to

The Defendant, in the vicinity of the entrance door door of this case, kid the victim’s left side of the victim’s walked one time, and kid up the victim’s walked outside of the entrance, and kid up the side of the victim’s bridge once again outside of the entrance, and kid up the victim with approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment.

B. Defendant B (i) The Defendant, the birth of the Defendant, at the same time, resisted the victim J (son, 59 years of age) of the said I to the Defendant’s act of assaulting the said A, within the main point of the instant paragraph (a). The Defendant saw the victim, went out of the main point of the instant case, and went out of the victim, followed the victim’s left side part of the victim’s back back once due to the victim’s own drinking, and again laid down the body of the victim’s flat to the floor, and then laid down the part of the victim’s flat, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment.

Shebly, the Defendant was assaulted by A and used by A, and the Victim I re-born later, she would be able to do so.

After taking a bath, the victim was pushed down to the floor, and assaulted over the floor.

2. The judgment of the court below

A. (1) As to Defendant A’s part of the facts charged, the lower court: (a) as to the part of the part regarding “(i) the victim’s bridge side from the door outside of the entrance and exit of Defendant A would cross the victim’s bridge once again; and (b) even if based on the victim I and witness J’s statement, there was no support for walking the bridge outside the entrance and exit, and thus, the evidence submitted alone.