The guilty part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

A. In the facts charged of this case, the part of the charges of this case that the defendants suffered injury to the victim K, including the upper limit of the left-hand 98 days of medical treatment, shall be found guilty on the basis of relevant evidence. However, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one and half years of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment; three years of suspended execution in one year and six months of social service; and Defendant B: one year and six months of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment; and eight hours of social service in 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act to "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. as "special injury" among the names of the crimes in the trial of the party. The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to which "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act are "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the court permitted the amendment and found the defendants guilty of the revised charges as seen below. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake about the acquittal is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the prosecutor’s statement of the Victim K and his driver, and CCTV images, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant B suffered injury, such as the left-hand pelel flag, which requires treatment for about 98 days by following the victim K’s bridge.

- Haguk's argument

B. According to the results of the reproduction of CCTV video images at the time of the instant case, the lower court determined that the restaurant of this case was exempted from the part of a person who reported the new launch, which provides meals on the tables, and 3-40 cm.