The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts by Defendant B was not related to the victim’s head as a beer’s disease.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant inflicted a bodily injury upon the victim A due to beer's head due to beer's disease.

B. The lower court’s punishment of the Defendants (Defendant A: two years of imprisonment; one year of suspended sentence; two years of suspended sentence; two years of surveillance and observation of protection and community service order 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts alleged in Defendant B (1), namely, ① the victim A has some differences in the detailed statement from the Defendant at the time of the instant case, but the entire statement is consistent, making it possible to make a reliable statement as a whole, ② the victim’s head head head head head part of the instant case was exposed to the victim’s head part, ② the victim’s head part was exposed to the victim’s head part, and the victim appears to have been born from the upper part of the victim’s body. ③ According to the written diagnosis of injury, the victim was found to have been diagnosed on February 28, 2015 with two open upper parts and two parts inside the P upper parts of the instant case’s body and the victim was diagnosed on February 28, 2015 after the date following the instant case. Such diagnosis corresponds to the statement on the injury of the victim, ④ the victim appears to have been reported first to the police, making it sufficiently recognized that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim’s head.

Therefore, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justifiable, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake.

(2) As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the instant crime committed by the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant was satisfy with C, assaulted the victim and broken down the dangerous objects.