All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles of Defendant A1) since Defendant A merely engaged in an act of priceing the victim once, Defendant A could have predicted the result of injury inflicted on the victim due to violence committed by Defendant B thereafter.

It cannot be seen, and the responsibility for the defendant A shall be deemed unfair to belong to the defendant. Thus, the court below which applied the special exception to the same model of injury erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the crime of injury or the special exception to the same model.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor (not guilty part against Defendant B) found Defendant B not guilty of the charge of attempted murder, which is the primary charge, even though the intention to murdered the victim at the time of the instant crime was dolusent, there was an error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Article 263 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine provides that “When an independent act concurrently causes injury, and the act which caused injury is not proven, the same as the joint principal offender shall apply.

“The foregoing provision provides that a person shall be punished as a principal offender for each of the two or more principal offenders in accordance with the example of a common principal offender, and the above provision also applies to the crime of serious injury.

In order to apply the foregoing special exception provision, two or more injuries or assault acts are conducted at the same time or at this time without communication with each other without communication, and there was a result of injury, and it is not possible to prove the relation with the person who caused the act and caused the result of injury.

Where the special exception to the same model is applied, the defendant shall prove that his/her own act did not result in the injury.

However, at this time the defendant is required.