Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment of conviction and the part of the judgment of second instance as to Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) misunderstanding the facts of Defendant C (A) and misunderstanding the legal principles (the point of special injury among the convictions of Defendant C (the part of Defendant 1’s decision of conviction) were false, but did not know that the Defendant was clothesed to the victim on January 1, 2015, and thus, there was an intentional special injury.

It can not be seen as a dangerous object, and it is difficult to regard the labelling as a dangerous object.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to dangerous goods in special injury and by misapprehending the risk of special injury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by finding a guilty verdict on January 1, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case.

(B) In light of the fact that: (a) most of the criminal acts committed against the victim L is recognized and against the most of the criminal acts committed against the victim L; (b) the victim L prepared a written non-application for punishment with the purport that the defendant does not want to be punished on February 20, 2016; (c) the degree of the defendant's participation in the instant criminal acts is minor and the profits acquired therefrom are small amounts, the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months (the first instance judgment) and six months (the second instance judgment) is too unreasonable.

(2) In light of the fact that Defendants A and B (unfair sentencing; 2.00,000 won was paid in total to E and the Defendants contributed to the recovery of damage, etc., each sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants to six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts of Defendant C (A) (the part of the judgment of not guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance) L was the defendant, who was sweld with his clothes, sweld with sweld, and knded the knife to the victim.

At the time of the arrival at the Ndo site, there was a consistent statement, and there was a rumor that the building cost was broken and frightened, and that the victim was frighted and frightened from the victim.

The statements are made by the victim and N.