The appeal against the defendant C by the prosecutor is dismissed.

A. Defendant B is merely a fighting event between Defendant B and the victim, and there is no fact that Defendant B inflicted an injury on the victim in collaboration with A as stated in the facts charged.

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. According to the witness’s statement at the time of the case by the prosecutor (as to Defendant C), although the court below found Defendant C guilty of this part of the charge that Defendant C sustained a bodily injury with Defendant C, the court below rendered a judgment of not guilty of Defendant C on the ground that the testimony by J is not reliable. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts in this part of the facts charged 1) Defendant C, in collaboration with A and B, was committed on June 13, 2015, on the ground that: (a) the victim H said that he was “I would pay the food value” due to the fact that he was the victim’s face at a time and walked one time with the left part of the victim’s face; and (b) Defendant B assaulted the victim’s face by walking up the front part of the victim’s walking; and (c) Defendant C assaulted the victim with the front part of the victim’s walk on several occasions; and (d) Defendant C took part of the victim’s face by walking up the part on several occasions; and (e) Defendant C 21 day of the victim’s walking the part on several occasions; and (e) the victim’s ambling the part on the part of the victim’s face; and (e) ambling the victim’s ambling the part on the part.

2) The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, on the ground that the police’s statement by the witness J, who was the main owner of the above “G” to collect the Republic of Korea, was not admitted as evidence since the J testified that there was no signature or seal on the above statement in this court, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence.