The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the embezzlement of the victim E, there is an error of misconception of facts in finding the above victim's cell phone; 2) as to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) against the victim D, the injury of the victim is not caused by the act of the defendant; 3) as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint damage, etc.) against the victim D, although there was no fact that the above victim's cell phone was damaged, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above part of the charges. However, the court below erred in finding the defendant guilty of each part of the charges. Since the court below's decision on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of ex officio determination was improper, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant, the prosecutor's ex officio examined "the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.)" as "special assault", Article 26 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act and Article 6 (2) of the Criminal Act as "the amendment of the indictment", and Article 26 (1) of the Criminal Act.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still included in the subject of the court's trial.

3. According to the consistent statement from the police stage of E and D to the court below, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the Defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant embezzled the victim E's cell phone not to return the cell phone of the victim E as stated in each of the above charges, and jointly with B.