A. Defendants B, B, and E were at the scene of the instant crime, but they did not participate in the instant crime since there was no assault against the victim, although they were at the scene of the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The defendants (e.g., defendants A, B, C, and D) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (e.g., one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants, and ten months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B and E’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is identical to that of the reasons for appeal at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, following the summary column of the evidence. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above Defendants are different from the other Defendants, and they are jointly with K, and the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the mouth of 120 days dubs consent, etc., so the court below’s rejection of the above Defendants’ assertion is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

Therefore, Defendant B and E’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Defendant A, C, and D, who made a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing of the Defendants, reflects the mistake while leading to the confession of the instant crime, and the Defendants contributed a certain amount of money to each victim and paid the victim a total of KRW 15,500,000 to the victim (the Defendants E bear the largest portion of the Defendants), and there is no record of criminal punishment both domestically and domestically. However, the instant crime was committed by the Defendants on the one hand with the victim by singing.