All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A A The fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant F, respectively, shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million.

1. Summary of Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. The Defendant’s spitation of facts (the second judgment of the court below) is written differently from the victim at the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged, but there is no fact that spits on the face.

However, since the court below recognized this, it erred in mistake of facts.

B. In light of the nature of the Defendant’s crime and economic circumstances, etc., the punishment of each lower court (the first lower court’s judgment: a fine of KRW 2 million; a fine of KRW 2 million: a fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant F (the first and third judgment of the lower court) (the Defendant was the first offender, and was in profoundly against the instant crime, and the victim of the crime of causing property damage was fully agreed upon even with the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

In addition, considering the economic situation of the defendant, the punishment of each court below (the first court below's judgment: the fine of 1.5 million won; the fine of 300,000 won: the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

3. Ex officio determination of judgment, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first and second instance, and Defendant F filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first and third instances, and the court of the first instance decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

Defendant

Each of the crimes of the first and second judgment against A, the first and third judgment against Defendant F are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each of the judgment below against the Defendants cannot be maintained as it is.

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

4. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A’s second judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the statement prepared by the victim B on the date of the occurrence of the case is written that the defendant spits the face once, and the defendant also at the investigation agency.