The judgment below

Of the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) against Defendant B.

1. The court below found Defendant B not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.) under the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. (Organization and Activity of Organizations, etc.) among the facts charged against Defendant B, and found Defendant B not guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (joint conflict), dismissed the public prosecution against the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged against Defendant A and the remainder of the facts charged against Defendant B.

As to this, the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, and the defendants appealed on the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, the part which the court below dismissed was separated and confirmed as it was, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant B et al. participated in the assault against AG due to the fact-finding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that “AG is found in the Youngdo” was given to the subsequent officers of the Youngdo, and that Defendant B et al., the other organization of the Youngdo, which was one of the organization of the Youngdo, started the assault by finding AG immediately after receiving a report from the latter officers, and started the assault by finding AG, and received contact, Defendant B et al., in sequence at the site, participated in the assault against AG., Defendant B et al., the act of inflicting injury on AG, along with M, N, and AH, which was not merely a mere common assault but also a criminal organization of the Youngdo officers who informed the police of the crime of the Youngdo executives, the lower court is reasonable to deem that Defendant B et al. was a crime organization of the North Korean staff members, but it was a mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on criminal organization activities.