The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B The judgment of innocence against the defendant B is not guilty.

Defendant A did not submit a written reason for appeal within the statutory period.

Defendant

B The judgment of the court below that found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case, although Defendant B did not have any error as indicated in the facts charged in this case, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

Defendant

A After filing an appeal against the lower judgment on August 13, 2015, the Defendant received the record of trial from this court on November 18, 2015. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant requested the appointment of the national defense counsel, but was notified of the decision of dismissal on January 6, 2016, the Defendant failed to submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the due reason for appeal, and the petition of appeal does not indicate the grounds for appeal (Provided, That the Defendant submitted a statement of grounds for appeal to the effect that the sentencing was unfair on April 26, 2016, after the deadline for submitting the appeal was too excessive, and the reasons for appeal was presented on the date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance, and the reasons for appeal cannot be found ex officio examination on the record.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A’s appeal shall be dismissed by a ruling pursuant to Article 361-4(1). However, as long as Defendant B’s appeal is rendered, Defendant B’s appeal shall be dismissed by a ruling as the same is en bloc.

Defendant

B The summary of the charges against Defendant B, on April 6, 2014, around 23:30, the Defendant: (a) reported that the victim A was seated on the floor outside of the Fhof house 1st in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, E, and she sited together with the victim A, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as a fluoral dye, requiring a treatment for about ten (10) days by putting the head debt of the victim who suffered from the defect, and then putting him/her over the victim’s head debt.

The lower court determined that the Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

judgment of the court.