A. Error of facts - The defendant is not obliged to assault the victim W or U in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statement of each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against W and U without credibility, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant instigated the victim to assault W and U.S.., 2) The lower court’s judgment can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e.,: ① W/U asked the Defendant at the prosecutor’s office how the victim would have been absent from his/her refusal to organize his/her organization and life, and asked him/her of the Defendant at the time of his/her omission. On the other hand, the lower court instructed the Defendant to send him/her at the time of the Defendant’s omission. Each of the trees around W and U’s statements at the time of the Defendant’s communication, the contents of the assault with the Defendant, the process and details of the assault with the victim, and the circumstances that the Defendant did not appear to be specific and empirically stated by the Defendant.

A victim's organized life.