Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the statements of the F, the victim F, the victim F, the victim F, the victim-friendly Gu K, the victim-friendly arrest R, and S, which had been at the scene of the accident, Defendant B, after a phone call, stated to the effect that Defendant B arrived at the site of the vehicle, and that he was aware that he was an employee of a violent organization by conducting personnel management as if he was about 90 degrees from the vehicle, and that he was employed by the Defendant, and that he was an employee of the violent organization. In full view of the Defendant’s partial statement and the photo on the site of this case, the fact that the Defendants inflicted injury

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on this part of the charges by misunderstanding the legal principles of joint injury and taking only evidence consistent with the Defendants’ alterion, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Considering the fact that there was the previous violation of unfair sentencing and there was no effort to recover damage, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A; Defendant A; Defendant A; 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years of suspended execution; Defendant B; imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is unreasonable.

Defendant

B The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant is unreasonable.

Judgment

On July 6, 2013, at around 03:30 on the part of the public prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants expressed the desire of Defendant B to “I see why I will see this son,” and Defendant A her head, drinking, etc., and continued to see the victim due to her head, drinking, etc., Defendant B her head, her head, etc., and her flicked the victim, and Defendant B her flicked the victim, and her flicked the victim, “I fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl fl d fl fl fl fl fl

According to F’s statement at the court below’s court below’s decision, the court below held that Defendant B is only recognized as having expressed desire to F, and Defendant A commits assault to F.