The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, Defendant A did not shoulder the victim B’s fingers, unlike the facts charged, and Defendant B did self-harm.

Nevertheless, the court below held that Defendant A sustained bodily injury by asking for the fingers of Defendant B.

As such, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by mistake.

2) The sentence against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) at the time of misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant B’s extension was the first extension, and Defendant B used the safety appearance of Defendant B to prevent it from doing so, in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that Defendant B was defryed by a sash pipe, and the frequency of the safety appearance was merely one time, and the strength was weak, the Defendant used a “hazardous object” as a weapon.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which determined that the hacks used by Defendant B constituted “Dangerous Articles.”

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and ① Defendant A was placed in the drafting of the fingers in the investigation agency at the time of investigation by the investigation agency.

The defendant A stated that the fingers were cut off with B's fingers without a shoulder memory. ② The defendant A led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case in the court of original instance, ③ the defendant A changed the existing position in the court of original instance and changed the existing position in the court of original instance to B.

Although it is argued to the effect that "the people engaged in work at the construction site, such as the building outer wall construction team, etc.", the above argument is not submitted at all, and the defendant A is not guilty.