A. (1) In light of the fact that Defendant A committed an assault against the victim, but when the police was called out, the victim was able to walk, the victim was able to walk, the victim was able to walk up at least two hours after the Defendants left the scene, go through the alcohol house called N in the vicinity of the site of this case after the Defendants went about about two hours, and the victim did not have any trace of being injured externally, the victim cannot be said to have suffered an injury due to the above Defendant’s assault.

(2) Defendant B and C merely told Defendant A and the victim to wrap, and they did not assault the victim.

B. In light of the following: (a) Defendant A’s mistake of unfair sentencing is against each other; (b) Defendant A deposited KRW 6 million for the recovery of damage; (c) Defendant A reported to the police by misunderstanding that the victim committed an indecent act against theO; and (d) the victim and the victim were attached thereto; and (c) Defendant A did not have any record of criminal punishment; and (d) Defendant B and C did not have any record of criminal punishment other than once a fine is imposed, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced Defendant A to the community service order for six months, the suspension of execution of execution of two years, and 120 hours; and (c) Defendant B and C’s each fine of KRW 3 million is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s injury as stated in the facts charged may be acknowledged. Upon receipt of the report at the time, the police officers dispatched to the FF did not find any trace of the victim’s external injury. Since the instant case, the victim did not change on the ground that there was a marrious drinking in FBN.

(1)