Defendant

The judgment of the court below against A and B, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order by the second adjudication, from among the judgment below.

1. The second instance court dismissed the prosecution as to Defendant H’s assault and assault No. 6913, which was decided in the instant facts charged against Defendant H, and sentenced Defendant H guilty only for the remaining facts charged.

However, according to the appeal by Defendant H only for the guilty part of the judgment of the second instance, the dismissal part of the indictment was separated and finalized.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the remaining conviction except the dismissal of the above indictment.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the judgment of the court below made against the Defendants is too unreasonable that each of the punishments imposed on the Defendants [the long-term eight months of imprisonment, the short-term six months of imprisonment (the first instance court in the first instance), the long-term two years of imprisonment, the short-term one year and six months, the fine of two hundred thousand won (the second instance court in the second instance), the Defendant B: imprisonment for six months (the first instance court in the second instance), imprisonment for one year and two months (the second instance court in the second instance), the Defendant C: imprisonment for six months (the second instance court in the second instance), and imprisonment for eight months (the second instance court in the second instance)] are too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B, prior to the judgment on the ex officio judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B.

A. The judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B filed an appeal against both Defendants A and B, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Since each of the offenses against Defendant A and B is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, it cannot be maintained in this point.

B. Defendant A was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time when the judgment of the court below was rendered by the HE birth, but the majority was attained, so the judgment of the court below that sentenced Defendant A to an illegal sentence under the Juvenile Act cannot be maintained even in this point.

4. Determination as to Defendant C and H’s wrongful assertion of sentencing

A. Defendant C’s crime of this case is an act of drinking together with his accomplices.