The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A A Fines of 2,00,000, Defendant B, C, D, and G shall be punished by each fine of 1,500.

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles are not making a tour of the factory in order to find out the 1st trillion won even though the Defendants continued to do so, and there was no assault as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 8 million, Defendant B, D, and G: each fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant E, and F: each fine of KRW 2 million) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance, even though there was an unfair assertion of sentencing on the date of the trial, the prosecutor did not state any indication of the unfair argument of sentencing on the grounds of appeal withdrawn on April 25, 2017. Therefore, the prosecutor does not look at the unfair argument of sentencing.

With regard to the acquittal portion in the judgment of the court below, the defendants recognized the fact that the defendants were in sight of each other after drinking with T, and in light of the fact that the defendants committed a collective assault over several occasions during a period of one hour, the court below acquitted the defendants of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to the facts constituting the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, the Defendants could sufficiently recognize that the Defendants assaulted the victims as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) The Defendants are the defendants.