Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

(b).

A. The punishment sentenced by Defendant A and B (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant C’s face three times in drinking the victim B’s face, and the head of the victim’s face is one time, and the victim B was injured by walking the right side side of the front side by walking the victim’s face one time, but the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s judgment against the Defendants of unfair sentencing (Defendant A and B: 10 months imprisonment, and 50,00 won fine) is so unfased that the sentence of the lower court (Defendant A and B: 50,000 won) against the Defendants is unreasonable

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

A. On April 7, 2018, at around 00:25, Defendant C, as indicated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, was injured by the victim B (the age of 37) who embling A as described in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below at least three times by drinking the face of the victim B (the age of 37) who embling A, as stated in this part of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, and at one time by drinking the head of the victim’s disease, which is a dangerous object, and then, the victim was injured by the victim, such as walking the right side part of the flive gate, and cutting the victim at least

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant C was aware of having been guilty due to the circumstances leading to violence between A and Si, and that there was a high possibility of exercising force as to B who participated in the relevant site. However, each of the statements made by B and B as shown in conformity with the facts charged is inconsistent with the facts charged, and each of the statements made by the investigative agency and the court of the lower court at the trial are inconsistent with the statements made by G, I, and H, and are in accord with each of the statements made by the investigative agency and the witness at the site, and it is difficult to believe that there is sufficient motive to make a false statement in light of the interests arising from the instant case and human relations with B, etc.