A. In relation to the facts charged by the Defendants, on March 3, 2016, as well as around March 22:35, 2016, with respect to the part of the facts charged that the Defendants, including the Defendant B, committed assault against the victims by jointly participating in several times in the Victim E and the Victim F, in the investigative agency, E, G, and H used the above E, F, and H’s body.

The consistent statement, E, G, and H’s legal statement was made at a certain time after the occurrence of the case, and the four above persons agreed, and thus, suspicion of credibility of the statement, witness I, and J concluded that two minutes of young people and their age are fighting each other.

Defendant B participated in the assault, taking into account that this is consistent with the initial statement of E, G and H, etc.

Although it is reasonable to see that the court below which acquitted the above part of the facts charged erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. Improper sentencing (as to Defendant A), the sentence (1.5 million won in penalty) that the court below sentenced to Defendant A (as to Defendant A) is too unhued and unreasonable.

[Defendant A’s defense counsel’s defense counsel’s written opinion on December 22, 2016 asserts that the crime of injury by negligence should be applied to Defendant A, not to the crime of injury by negligence.

Ex officio, Defendant A puts a food about to see E.

G appears to have been taken place at the time of G (Evidence No. 54 of the evidence record, No. 65 of the trial record), and Defendant A’s assertion that there was no intention to wait at the victim G as long as he/she had been drinking to the defendant as he/she had the intention to wait at the defendant when he/she was living in the military. The above assertion by Defendant A is nothing more than the argument about the mistake of the subject matter, and

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination

A. 1) Unless there is an exceptional circumstance in which it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial, the appellate court, as a witness of the first instance trial, shall be the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.