A. In relation to the fact-finding, Defendant B and Defendant A's joint injury, according to the victim's statement, Defendant B could be found to have inflicted an injury on the victims in collaboration with Defendant A, but the court below found the victims not guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of mistake in the fact-finding.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C, which was unfair in sentencing, is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the prosecutor, the lower court held that this part of the facts charged was proven to the extent that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the court below's reasonable doubt is acceptable even in the trial. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

① The statements of H and C are inconsistent or inconsistent with the statements of the injured party H and C, whether Defendant B arrived at the site of the Defendant B and later, how Defendant B participated in the fighting, how Defendant B took part in the physical part of the injured party, and whether Defendant B took part in the physical part of the injured party.

② At the time, not only the Defendant F, G, but also the witness who was in a third party position, Defendant B only made a fighting.

3. In full view of all the circumstances, including the background leading up to the Defendant’s participation in the assault with H, the degree of the assault committed by the Defendant, the Defendant’s criminal records, etc., as well as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, there is no change in circumstances at the trial compared to the lower court.