A. The fact that the defendant inflicted an injury on the victims at the time, time, and place specified in the facts of the crime as stated in the judgment below is recognized, but since the joint defendant B did not inflict an injury on the victims, it does not constitute a joint injury.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Where an appellate court intends to conduct a re-evaluation of the first instance judgment and ex post facto determination despite the absence of any objective reason that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of the trial, the court must have reasonable circumstances to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, without such exceptional circumstance, the court shall not reverse without delay the judgment on the finding of facts 1 in the first instance judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and in light of the evidence duly examined by the lower court and the content of the lower court’s reasoning, it does not seem reasonable to maintain the lower court’s judgment that the Defendant jointly with the co-defendant B was significantly injured by the victims.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the first instance court.