The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Considering the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles as follows, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

1) The Defendant did not have a relationship with the intent to jointly process or mutual use of the victim E, jointly with the victim E, to inflict an injury on the victim E. (2) The Defendant did not commit any assault, such as attaching the victim D, expanding the scope of the victim D, spreading the victim’s head two to three times due to drinking, etc. as stated in the instant facts charged. (B) It cannot be deemed that the victim D’s injury was caused by the Defendant’s assault.

The Defendant asserted in the defense counsel’s statement of grounds of appeal that it cannot be deemed that the injury of the victim D, such as the initial facts charged, was caused. However, the Defendant withdrawn the above assertion through the defense counsel’s statement on March 18, 2020.

C) Even if it is recognized that an injury was inflicted on the victim D, only a simple injury under the Criminal Act is established against the Defendant’s act. D) The Defendant put the victim D’s arms even in order to clarify the victim D who committed an assault against the victim A, which is dismissed as self-defense or legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the victim E-related assertion: (a) The phrase “two or more persons jointly” under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the number of persons jointly exist so-called co-offenders; and (b) that there are cases where several persons are aware of another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it to commit a crime.

Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305 Delivered on February 25, 2000