A. Fact-finding1) Defendant A was scambling with the victim A, but did not assault the victim jointly with Defendant B. (2) Defendant B merely told the victim A of fighting, such as dumpinging the victim into both arms and leaving the main door, and did not assault the victim.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for four months, a suspended sentence of one year, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant B also made the same assertion as the above mistake of facts, and the court below rejected Defendant B’s above assertion on the grounds of the same reasons as the judgment of the court below.

The following circumstances revealed by the court below, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e. G., upon witnessing and reporting the first crime of this case, reported to the court below 112 at the time that “a person who is adjacent to a person who acquired a child in the Republic of Korea is in a situation adjacent to him/her,” and the investigation agency and the court below made a relatively concrete and consistent statement about the situation where the defendants jointly assaulted the victim, the victim who was present as a witness in the court below, and the witness G was clearly erroneous in the court below’

The appellate court has to respect the judgment of the lower court on the credibility of the statement made by the said witness, as it seems significantly unreasonable to maintain the judgment of the lower court that recognized the credibility of the statement made by the said witness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The lower court also has to respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The Defendant B was sealed at the time when the investigation agency