A. Although the credibility of the victim’s statement can be fully acknowledged in light of the relationship between the persons related to the investigation report, etc. prepared on the day of the instant facts charged, and the Defendants’ relationship and the urgent situation at the time, the court below rejected the victim’s statement consistently claiming damage without any reasonable grounds, accepted the victim’s investigation report, etc., which has no credibility, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by

B. In light of the legal doctrine that Defendant A expressed the victim’s desire, and that the Defendants thought the victim as a critical figure, the Defendants cannot be readily concluded as a mere passive defense by the Defendants’ act, i.e., punishing the Defendants and the victims by spreading their body, etc.

2. Determination

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendants are co-owners of each service unit, and they are the victims of the instant charges. At the Daegu D service office around May 27, 201, around 09:15, the victims E ( South, 1975 students) demanded a factual verification of the fact that they paid the charges after getting on board the railroad, and Defendant A refused to comply therewith. Defendant A was dissatisfied with the request of the victims for copying the guide related to getting on board in the service office. Defendant A was able to have the wheelchairs flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flicker flick flicker flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick fl, Defendant B had the victim's bridge flick flick flick flick fl.

2) The judgment of the court below and the party deliberation.