The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. A) Defendant A and B did not have an intention to assault the victim.

In particular, food, such as smuggling and food, is not rootsd toward the victim's eye or face.

B) Even if the victim consented to the so-called “living breab,” and even if the victim had her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

In particular, Defendant C was unable to anticipate that a large quantity of the vegetations using Defendant A’s usage would spread the victim’s face. (d) The so-called “living bread” took place between students at the time as a day-to-day axis, and the act of Defendant A and B constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social rules. (ii) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On March 16, 2008, the Defendants purchased smuggling, water sprink, and sprink at the window of Changwon-si in order to rescue the so-called “living baking” in the mutual sprink located in the spons of Changwon-si, and then met the victims, and met the victim with the sports site adjacent to the spaking elementary school.

Defendant

A, C, H, and I are in their place.