In light of the records, the court below's decision that held that the defendant's statement from the police investigation process of Masungsung, a victim pointing out the arguments to the trial of the court of first instance is acceptable in light of the evidence duly examined by the court below, and that the defendant et al. did not recognize that he did not commit an assault against Maternity since he was unable to be regarded as having committed an act of assault against Maternity as it was pointed out that the defendant et al. did not request a Maternity, and on the other hand, even though she did not say that she did not have any fact, she could not be the material that the defendant sought, and thus, it cannot be adopted in the court below's decision that there was no evidence to prove that the facts charged in this case did not constitute an unlawful violation of the rules of evidence selection.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

It is the requirement that the crime is committed jointly under the so-called Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a co-offender relationship among several persons, and it refers to the case where several persons recognize the assault committed by other persons on the same opportunity at the same place, and thereby, use it. Thus, even though the defendant was recognized that he committed the assault against the above maximum person, this alone does not constitute a crime as a co-principal unless there is any sharing of the act of crime, and therefore, it is merely an independent opinion that argues that the judgment of the court below erred in the legal principles as to co-principal.

Therefore, the appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)