The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A 4 years of imprisonment, and Defendant B 3 years of imprisonment.

Defendant

B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal scenarios(Article 1 (b) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the original court) Defendant B did not attract A to commit a special injury by injury to the victim F, and it was not anticipated that A was prevented from committing the above crime.

In addition, A did not commit an act of special injury by sharing it.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to inflict bodily injury on the victim F, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The lower court’s each of the Defendants’ respective arguments on unfair sentencing (the maximum of six years of imprisonment with labor for the Defendants A, the short of four years of imprisonment with labor for the Defendants B, the short of four years of imprisonment with labor for the Defendants B, and the short of three years of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

With respect to Article 1-B of the facts charged at the trial, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio changed the name of Defendant B to “special injury relief”, and add Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act to the applicable provisions of the Act, and (2) under the Defendants’ criminal facts, “a summary of the facts and evidence of the crime” as stated in the relevant provision, applied for amendments to Bill of Amendment.

This Court accepted the above motion and allowed the modification of indictment.

Therefore, the pertinent part of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as changed.

Furthermore, this part of the revised facts charged should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the remaining facts charged against the Defendants found guilty. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants in its entirety should be reversed.

In conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the Defendants is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment below is rendered following the pleadings, on the grounds that there are grounds for ex officio reversal as to the Defendants.

another judgment.