The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

C. The Defendant A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3 million.

A. The witness I of the instant case was found to have failed to view that Defendant C was at the time of the victim in the court of original trial.

However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above statement was confirmed to be false after being examined as perjury by the prosecutor, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the written diagnosis of injury, it can be acknowledged that Defendant C was injured by considering the victim's injury as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, rather than putting the victim's breath. Moreover, even if the location of the assault by Defendant C and the assault by Defendant A and B are different, it can be sufficiently recognized a public contest relationship in light of the closeness between time and place

Nevertheless, the court below denied the Defendants’ conspiracy relation and the person who injured the Defendants, and recognized only the assault crime against the Defendants. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of KRW 300,000,000) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the daily worker on the construction site and the victim E (56) is the head of the construction site team.

On July 31, 2015, at around 22:05, Defendants and B talked about “G” at the entrance of the Busan Geum-gu F market. While the victim did not pay wages in May 2015, Defendants and B got out of the above frequency, Defendant C took the victim’s face at drinking and walking back back to scam. Defendant A was scam of the victim’s breath, and Defendant A scam scam. B was scamed. B.

As a result, Defendants and B jointly put about about four weeks of medical treatment to the victim, and the following end-up frameworks were added to the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) there was a victim’s statement that seems consistent with the facts charged in the instant case; and (b) the following circumstances revealed by the records of the instant case, i.e., the victim initially.