A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Prosecutor 1) Defendant B’s use of Defendant B’s assault (a factual error) on May 17, 2017, as seen below, Defendant A’s use of assault (a factual error) was recognized, and thus, the term “victim” is unified into “victim.”

In light of the fact that there was a dispute between the Defendants and the Defendant B, and the victim’s attitude on the handling of the instant case, even if Defendant B’s statement alone recognized the fact of assaulting the victim, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts. 2) The Defendants’ joint injury (the fact-finding) committed by the victim on March 12, 2018, and E consistently stated the fact of harm; and E stated in the investigative agency that there was a fighting match between the Defendants and the victim immediately before the Defendants and the victim walked with each other while the Defendants and the victim got fighting.

Inasmuch as the lower court also recognized that there was a fighting match between the Defendants and the victims’ body, even if the result of the injury was caused by Defendant A’s act, the joint injury liability between the Defendants and the Defendants who carried on a physical fighting match should be recognized, and at least, Defendant B should be liable for the crime of assault or joint assault, which is a reduction in fact, should be

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. Defendant A (in fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing) stated that Defendant A did not consistently assault the victim, and Defendant A’s legal statement to the effect that Defendant A considered the victim’s shoulder and her leg to the point of time is difficult to believe. Rather, witness G and H merely expressed the victim’s assaulting the Defendant B.