The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have any fact as a cell phone-free penalty from E, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) among the facts charged in the instant case, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) among the facts charged in the instant case, although the Defendant was either at the time of the victim B or E with the Defendant, or cell phone from E, even though there was no fact that there was a penalty for negligence. (2) The sentence of the court below on the Defendant of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service,

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the joint conflict crimes, the lower court’s fact-finding and determination that the Defendants jointly committed a mobile phone from E is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendants' above mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

1) Both Q and E consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the purport that Defendant A took handphones from Defendant A, and Defendant B took a bath from the next side. Evidence Nos. 2:9, 10, 43, 51, 138, 139, and trial records No. 69, 75, 29, 75, of the evidence record, are taken off from Defendant A at the investigative agency.