All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A misunderstanding the facts of Defendant A1) Defendant A did not see the victim I in the H restaurant around 02:15 on February 22, 2017 (the point of assaulting the victim I) (the point of assaulting the victim I). 2) Sentencing is unfair.

B. According to the F’s statement and CCTV images, etc., Defendant A suffered an injury on the climatic base and tension in light of the following: (a) the Defendant F’s testimony and CCTV images

In full view of the statements made by the victim I, the evidence of CCTV images, etc., and the circumstances in which the victim I suffered an assault from the Defendants and the Defendants’ attitude of assault, etc., the Defendants jointly and severally inflicted an injury on the victim I.

The judgment of the court below, which acquitted Defendant A’s injury to Defendant AF, should be seen (the Defendants’ joint injury to Defendant I). Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendants’ joint injury to Defendant I.

2) Improper sentencing (as to the Defendants)

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

Therefore, according to evidence, the court below reported 112 reports while the victim I am out of a restaurant and hereinafter "the victim I was assaulted," and reported 112 reports from the defendant B. The victim I consistently stated that ① the person who assaults himself/herself in the restaurant and the person who assaults himself/herself outside the restaurant is another person, and ② the victim I was under extensive influence of alcohol at the time to the extent that he/she is not bread.

(3) If I recognizes that it is violence B in a restaurant, the police substitute investigation does not want to punish Defendant A while wishing to punish Defendant B.

It appears that there is no reason to make a statement, (4) before the police in receipt of the I's report arrives at the restaurant, the defendant A is on the site with the defendant B.