Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

A. The prosecutor’s (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant A, and fines for the defendant B: 5,00,000) of the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts does not have any injury to the victim in the same manner as indicated in the facts charged in this case, and there is no credibility in the victim’s statement consistent with the facts charged in this case. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted Defendant A of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The microphone as indicated in the judgment of the court below does not constitute “hazardous goods” and it cannot be deemed that Defendant A was “Carrying”. Thus, the judgment of the court below which determined Defendant A’s act as a special

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable. C. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant B did not threaten the victim in the same manner as indicated in the instant facts charged, and the victim’s statement that corresponds to the instant facts charged is not reliable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2 The lower court’s 2nd sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts - The lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that the victim’s statement consistent with the facts charged in the instant case was credibility, as indicated in its reasoning, i.e., whether Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim. (2) Defendant A consistently denied the facts charged in the instant case from the investigation stage to the court of the first instance, but the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.