A. In fact, the Defendant merely attempted to fighting between C and the victim, and did not inflict an injury on the victim in collaboration with C, such as showing an attitude that the victim seems to be at the time of the victim due to an empty beer disease, or taking the body of the victim as a consequence, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts charged in this case and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that “the victim was assaulted by two persons; (ii) the defendant was faced with the beer disease on the part of an empty beer disease; and (iii) the victim was unable to exaggeration the situation, such as making a statement by distinguishing the part of his/her accuracy from the part of the case; and (ii) the CCTV image taken at the time corresponds to the facts charged (the victim was unaware of the fact that he/she took the body of the victim due to the Defendant’s assault; (iii) the victim did not recognize that he/she took the body of the victim; (iv) the victim was in a situation beyond the floor due to the Defendant’s assault; and (iii) the victim’s assertion that he/she was unable to take the body of the ordinary person before and after the beer disease; and (v) the victim’s body and the victim’s CCTV cannot take the body of the victim.