A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged of this case in spite of the fact that Defendant A, his mother, only assaulted the victim, and there was no joint injury, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won by each fine) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below's judgment on the defendant B's assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim C, from the investigative agency to the court below's judgment, consistently stated that "the victim's statement from the investigation agency to the court below is made to the effect that it would be harmful to the victim's report," and "the victim's statement was made to the victim's humfe", and the victim's humfe was made to the victim's humfe, and the victim's humfe was made to the defendant B, and the defendant A, who was next to the defendant B, made a statement to the effect that "the victim's statement was not made to the victim's 0th humfe", and that it is difficult to find that the victim's statement was made in a concrete and consistent manner, and that the victim's statement was not made to the above defendant B and the victim's witness's statement to the court below."