The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The developments leading up to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not coincide with the statements of witnesses J, and neither one among the Defendants, who are both balls, was injured by the victim G nor abused the victim I. Defendant B cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime of “joint” because it was not recognized that the intent to participate in the Defendant A’s act was not recognized.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, Defendant B: fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants

A. "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of injury or assault" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime by using it (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991). A co-principal who jointly processes and commits the crime by two or more persons are not necessarily required to be directly and explicitly, and in any case, there may be a combination of intent to jointly process the crime and realize it. If the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective element must be proved by indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have a substantial relation to the crime by nature of the object.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6103 Decided January 24, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645 Decided February 23, 2006, etc.) B.

The evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below is as follows.