(b) The rate of injury committed by a person whose identity the harmful act is unclear shall be the same as the model of the injury;

B. In the crime of injury, where two or more persons commit a harmful act and thereby bring about the result of the injury, if it is clear whether the injury was caused by a harmful act of a person, all of the perpetrators shall be deemed joint principal offenders. Therefore, a person whose harmful act itself is not clear cannot be viewed as joint principal offenders.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, on the ground that the court of first instance declared that the defendants were wraped by each other, Defendant 1 was faced with the face and chest 5,6 times after being taken one time from the face of the above victim, and Defendant 2 was drinking once again, and Defendant 2 took once again the above victim's buck, and one of the defendants took one time at the same time, he took a string of a shoulder glass bottle where one of the above victims was located, and took a 47-day off the above victim's chill, and thereby taking the above victim's clamor, he was able to receive non-open abruption which should be treated for 47 days.

2. In light of the record, as to whether the aforementioned Defendants’ harmful act was committed, there is no other evidence such as witness’s statement and witness’s statement to see the truth in addition to the Defendants’ own assertion and the above victim’s statement. Examining the contents of the victim’s statement as follows.

(1) According to the statement of the judicial police officer in charge of administrative affairs regarding the victim's statement (Article 12, 13 of the Investigation Records), the above victim is in two arms. While Defendant 1 was booming the left side of the plaintiff 2 who wants to use the victim's breath under the influence of alcohol, Defendant 1 was booming at one time the left side of the plaintiff 1 and booming the plaintiff 1's chest at one time the left side of the plaintiff 1, and booming the plaintiff 1's chest, so he was fluding the defendant 1's chest, he was 5 to 5 to 5 to 3 to 5 to 100, 7 to 7 to 8 to 201 to 3 to 3 to 1 to 3 to 3 to 201 to 3 to 1 to 3 to 201 to 3 to 20 to 1 to 3 to 201 to 3 to 1 to 3 to 2 to me the above name of the plaintiff.

First of all, even according to the above statement, Defendant 2 came to peep that Defendant 2 attempted to breath and breathly breath the victim’s body under the influence of alcohol. As such, Defendant 2’s participation in the assault, such as Defendant 1’s face 7,8 times, etc., on the part of Defendant 1’s harmful act, to the extent that he could not easily breath his body under the influence of alcohol, cannot be deemed as a statement that is difficult to obtain.

(2) 뿐만 아니라 그후 위 피해자는 피고인들에 가세하여 피해자를 공격한 제 3 자가 위 진술내용과는 달리 뒤에서 피해자의 등을 주먹으로 때렸다든가(사법경찰관 사무취급 작성의 지동준에 대한 진술조서중 대질신문부분, 수사기록 제46, 47정, 피고인 1에 대한 피해자신문조서중 대질신문부분, 수사기록 제86, 87정) 또는 등을 발로 찼다는 등(검사의 피해자에 대한 진술조서, 수사기록 제133정) 엇갈린 진술을 하고 있고, 또 유리병으로 피해자의 얼굴을 찍은 행위에 관하여도 처음에는 피고인들과 성명 미상인의 3명중 누군가가 찍은 것이라고 진술하다가 그후 피고인들 2명중 한 사람이라고 진술을 바꾸고 있다(사법경찰관 사무취급 작성의 피고인 1에 대한 제 3 회 피의자신문조서중 대질신문부분, 수사기록 제100, 101정 및 검사의 피해자에 대한 진술조서, 수사기록 제133정).

As above, it is difficult to grasp the exact status of the crime because the content of the victim's statement itself is what the victim's statement is, and even according to the above victim's statement, the victim's statement alone is sufficient to readily conclude that the attack by the victim's act was committed by two persons among the two persons, before considering the following: (a) the victim's appearance and the victim's location at the time when the victim was faced with the assault from the third person while the victim was faced with the assault from the third person; and (b) the victim's appearance and the location at the time when the victim was faced with the assault from the third person is compared; and (c) the victim's face can be taken by the victim's appearance and distance from the victim's face with the deadly weapon.

In the crime of injury, where two or more persons have committed a harmful act and brought about the result of the injury, if it is not clear whether the injury was caused by a certain person's harmful act, all of the perpetrators shall be deemed joint principal offenders. Therefore, it is no longer possible for a person whose act itself was committed by a harmful act to be different from that of a person.

If the Defendants were to seek the victim from drinking or e-mail as alleged by the victim, the Defendants cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime. However, if the Defendants were to bear the face of the victim with a deadly weapon, if there is no possibility of any one of the Defendants to commit the crime, then the Defendants and the third parties cannot be deemed to have contacted with one another. In the instant case, the Defendants cannot be held liable for the charge even for the part of the bodily injury by a deadly weapon.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the incomplete hearing and it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)