The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended execution in one year of imprisonment, two years of community service order 200 hours, one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution in one year of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A(1) who is an accomplice of mistake of facts, Defendant B did not pose a threat to the victim by his hand, Defendant B did not have sicked and did not feel a threat to the victim, and Defendant A did not take the hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand over from Defendant B to prevent Defendant B from using his hand hand, and did not pose a threat to the victim by hand hand hand.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. (A) Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content of “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)” as “special intimidation”, “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 283(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act” as “Articles 284, 283(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts can be recognized as having threatened the victim by jointly carrying hand and scoos, which are dangerous objects. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant A is without merit.

① According to the images of on-site photographs (Evidence No. 8 pages), Defendant A saw her hand as one hand and her two bricks on other hand, and Defendant 2.