The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the facts that Defendant C was at the time when the victim A was in danger, and the facts that Defendant A was at the time when the victim B was in danger, and the fact that Defendant A was at the time when the victim B was in danger, and the facts that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim C are fully recognized, the Defendants did not inflict an injury on each other with dangerous articles on the other based on N’s statement, etc. However, the judgment of the court below that held that Defendant C and B jointly inflicted an injury on the victim A, M, and Defendant A was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court, in light of the following: (a) with respect to the instant case in which the Defendants injured each other; (b) the Defendants stated that N in a relatively objective position was not committed by Defendant C, and that B himself/herself was lids of the three numbers of materials from Defendant A; and (c) C made a statement that he/she did not have a direct assault from Defendant A, the lower court determined that Defendant C was deprived of A.

Since it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A had inflicted a bodily injury on Defendant B, C’s M, and A’s respective co-injury to Defendant B among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant C guilty only for the crime of injury on the part of Defendant B, C’s M, and the crime of injury on the part of Defendant A, and Defendant C’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury on the part of Defendant C with a deadly weapon, etc.), Defendant A spoke B with a prone lid, and followed, Defendant A was acquitted of each violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury on the part of Defendant C with a deadly weapon, etc.).

If the above judgment of the court below is examined closely with the records of this case, such judgment of the court below is just, and it is erroneous in the misconception of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.