All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although the Defendant did not have committed the crime of bodily injury resulting from confinement in the first instance judgment and the crime of special injury in the second instance judgment, and the crime of bodily injury in the second instance judgment, Defendant 1 and the second instance court found Defendant guilty of each of the above crimes by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first and second instances of sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

(b)the sentence sentenced to the Defendant by the second instance judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. As the judgment of the court below against the defendant in the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below in the second and second instances, and the court decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first and second levels against the defendant in the first and second instances is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances cannot be exempted from the whole reversal.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined differently.

B. The reasoning for the 1 and 2 judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence examined in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first and second judgment.

there are parts in which the statements in the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below in the 1 and 2th court are somewhat unsatisfy and consistent in the tax items.

Even if there is a big reduced distance, it is judged that there is credibility due to the specification and consistency of the body, and in the case of the crime of bodily injury resulting from confinement in the judgment of the first instance court, F's self-written statement (F was unable to make a statement in the first instance court due to the uncertainty of location, and the preparation of the written statement was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances.

As such, it is recognized.