Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

A. The sentence of Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A statement in an investigative agency is more reliable than a prosecutor E’s witness E’s legal statement.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charges of special injury against Defendant A. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. 1) The court below found Defendant A not guilty of the charges of special injury by Defendant A on the ground that “A’s testimony made by an investigative agency was erroneous in light of the content and attitude of witness E’s legal statement, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A was victim F due to satisf or far, and that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the injury inflicted solely on the victim was due to Defendant A’s act, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.” The court below’s judgment was duly adopted at the court below and the court of the trial and examined the facts in comparison with the evidence duly and closely (it is difficult to view that F was guilty of death on June 21, 2019 at the court below’s trial date, but it was hard to view that Defendant A was guilty with Defendant A, and that Defendant A was unable to prove that he was guilty or f was guilty with Defendant C, in light of the fact that Defendant A was not admissible, and that the court below’s testimony and the fact that Defendant A was not admissible with the witness evidence.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. 2) Therefore, there is no ground for misunderstanding of facts.

B. The ground for Defendant B’s allegation of unfair sentencing is as follows.