Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with labor for a maximum of one year and two months, and a short of ten months.

A. Prosecutor (Defendant A and C) 1) Fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the signboards used by the Defendants’ accomplices for the instant crime and signboards prohibited from parking constitute “hazardous things”.

Nevertheless, the above article does not constitute a dangerous article.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this part is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the above Defendants (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year and two months of imprisonment, and ten months of short term) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The Defendant, as stated in the facts of the crime No. 3 as indicated in the judgment below, did not jointly inflict an injury on the victim AE, and only attempted to fight with the victim.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D (Cheating of Sentencing) The sentence sentenced by the court below to the above defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor, and ten months of short term) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that a sign prohibiting parking of plastic materials and a sign of prohibiting parking of plastic materials, as stated in this part of the facts charged, constitutes a dangerous article that may harm the other party

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts, or of misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. Defendant C’s.