All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A did not lose the center of the victim’s body by pushing the victim’s body. However, Defendant A merely lost the center of the victim’s body and went beyond the center, and there was no intention to inflict an injury or to inflict an injury on the victim. Defendant B did not have an intention to inflict an injury upon the victim when the victim was deprived of. (2) Defendants did not have an intention to inflict an injury on the victim by using each other.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the establishment of the crime of injury (A) is sufficient when there exists a perception of assault, which is the cause of injury, and is not necessary until the existence of the intention to cause injury.

(B) Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “A person who jointly commits any of the following crimes shall be jointly held by two or more persons” and “a person who jointly commits any of the following crimes” shall be held as the requirement for the existence of a co-offender relationship between them, and several persons shall be held to have committed a crime by recognizing and using a different person’s criminal act in the same opportunity at the same place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2022, Oct. 30, 1990). To establish a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to have committed a crime through the intention of co-processing, which is subjective requirement, and the intention of co-processing is integrated to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of co-processing, and the intention of co-processing shall be to move to one’s own will by using another person’s own act.

Although the intention of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime and not to restrain it, it is not sufficient to keep it in advance.