The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not jointly use the victim E with B and C as stated in the facts charged, and the injury suffered by the victim E is difficult to be deemed as an injury as it naturally cured.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the cost of KRW 1.5 million and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the credibility of a statement made by a victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the relevant court shall not reject the statement without permission, unless there are any other reliable materials that can reasonably be objectively deemed as having been objectively deemed consistent and consistent with the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In addition, where the statement made by the witness is consistent with the aforementioned part of the statement, the credibility of the statement should not be denied solely on the grounds that the statement made by the witness, including the victim, is inconsistent and consistent with the facts charged, and the witness’s appearance, attitude, and appearance, and appearance, appearance, etc. of the witness who is attending the public court after being sworn in the presence of a judge, and the witness’s statement made by the witness, including the victim, is not consistent with the witness’s statement made in the witness’s statement made in the public court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10728, Mar. 14, 2008). “When two or more persons jointly commit a crime of injury or assault under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” requires that there exists a so-called so-called accomplice relationship among them, and that several persons are aware of the crimes committed by other persons at the same time and at the same place.