A. Fact-finding was conducted between E and the victim F at the time of the instant case, but the Defendant was merely sleeping clothes in the process of speaking, and there was no fact that the Defendant sleeped the victims or inflicted an injury on the victims.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the term “two or more persons jointly commit a crime” requires that the two or more persons exist in the so-called co-offender relationship, and that the same opportunity is recognized and used to commit a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1642, Feb. 23, 1996). In such a case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the victims were assaulted by E and the Defendant at an investigative agency:

2) At Hdo investigative agency, witnessing the scene at the time, the Defendant turned over the floor by putting the victim FF, G balbling, or cutting the head with his hair.

In light of the fact that the statement of the above victims is sufficiently supported by the statement of the purport that it is "," and the defendant E and the victim F, the first vision of the defendant's person E and the victim F, and the defendant was also recognized as to the fact that he had expressed his desire to the victims along with E at the time, and the fact that the victim was able to wear clothes of the victims, and the above behavior of the defendant's person appears to have been more than the mere expression of the fighting, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a crime against the crime of this case as long as the defendant committed a fighting after the commencement of fighting with E and F, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a crime as to the crime of this case.