The judgment of the court below (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the first and second crimes.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of Defendant A (total 4 years and 6 months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D (i.e., the lower court permitted the amendment of the indictment on the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, and the facts charged before and after the amendment are identical to the victim and the act, but the time, place, and performance requirements are different, so it is not allowed to modify the indictment. However, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the modified facts after granting the amendment of the indictment. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amendment of the indictment

Dodic mental and physical disorder Defendant was a mentally ill person who was receiving treatment under the name of ward, such as non-private personality disorder, harmful use of alcohol, etc., and was in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability at the time of the instant crime.

Article 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the sentencing of the court below shall be sentenced to the punishment of unfair sentencing.

2. Determination

A. (i) As to Defendant D’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the prosecutor of the relevant legal doctrine may add, delete, or modify the facts charged or the applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment with the permission of the court within the scope not impairing the identity of the facts charged. The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts charged, are the same in basic respect. In determining the identity of such basic facts, the Defendant’s act and the social factual relations are based on the same, and the normative elements should also be considered.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do749, Aug. 21, 1998; 2003Do8153, Jul. 22, 2004). In the instant case, Defendant D is within the W Park in Seo-gu, Daejeon around August 19, 2012, with respect to the amendment of indictment concerning insult among the facts charged in the instant case.