Therefore, in the trial, only the remainder of the judgment of the court below is judged.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective action, a deadly weapon, etc.) by the Defendants (as to the Defendants A, C, and D) is not likely to cause serious injury to the victims by using dangerous articles by several defendants.

Considering these points, the sentence imposed by the court below (defendant A, C: one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of probation, three years of probation, community service, 160 hours of imprisonment, one year and six months of probation, three years of probation, three years of probation, probation, and 240 hours of community service) is too unaffortable and unfair.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the crime of infliction of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) ] Defendant did not look at the victim due to beer’s illness, and an unresh beer’s disease cannot be deemed as a dangerous object.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Even if the Defendant is found guilty of all of the charges, in light of the background and degree of the crime, and the agreement with the victim, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and a fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on Defendant B’s assertion, the victim stated to the effect that “the victim was at the time of Defendant B’s giving a definite answer in the court,” but on the other hand, the victim stated to the effect that “the victim was at the time of giving a definite answer.”