A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the defendants), the defendant B, together with the defendant A, can recognize the fact that the victims suffered bodily injury.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B not guilty on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A and the victims sustained injury jointly with Defendant A, and found Defendant A guilty only on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant A had inflicted an injury on the victims jointly with other persons, and acquitted the victims on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury).

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendant was subject to multiple juvenile protective disposition and a fine on one occasion for the same kind of crime, the degree of injury to the victims is not minor, and the victims have no negligence, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of suspended execution in six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts in light of relevant evidence and records, the court below's decision that found Defendant A not guilty on the grounds as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no additional evidence to reverse the above judgment of the court below. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A) committed the instant crime against the victims who did not err by the Defendant, and the victims’ injury is not minor, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.