The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no erroneous determination of facts (Defendant B) that there was no victim’s face value.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that Defendant B and A are co-residents of the Ebudio 104 304 dong 304 dong 304 at Asan City, and that, around January 25, 2015, at around 21:00, the resident victim F (36 years of age) of the victim No. 303, the next heading room of the 303 dong 25, the defendant B and A sought a defense wall on the side of contact with the school of the defendant B and A, together with the defendant B and A, sought a vision between the victim and the victim.

Defendant

B around 21:00 on January 25, 2015, around 21:00, at the victim’s residence, the victim’s left part of the room room 303 was drinking once, and A, from the defendant B, had the victim, who met the part of the room room from the defendant B, flick the head part over the floor of the victim’s knife and flick, flick the head part over the floor, and flicked the victim’s knife, flick the head part over the floor of the living room. The victim flicked the right part for about 5 weeks of treatment.

As a result, Defendant B inflicted an injury on the victim jointly with Defendant A.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by compiling the evidence in its judgment.

C. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons. (2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① The meaning of Defendant B and A’s view that Defendant B and A were able to control the victim who was living on the side of the bank, led Defendant B and A to set up a wall of the side of contact between Defendant B and A, and Defendant B’s claim for the victim.

② Defendant B has no consistent value of the victim’s face at an investigative agency up to this court, and Defendant B has expressed his desire to take the victim’s face from the victim’s perspective.