The judgment below

The parts against the Defendants are reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B, and Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and D1) misunderstanding legal principles (as to the injury caused by confinement), the upper part of the victim suffered is naturally cured and does not cause harm to daily life, without the need for treatment. Thus, the injury does not constitute an injury.

2) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A and D (two years of imprisonment; three years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment; observation of protection in one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendants (unfair sentencing against the Defendants) by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 24, 2017, in relation to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the victim took two parts of the left eye of the Defendant A within the car of car of Kanju on two occasions.

The victim brought a hole on the opposite side by the prosecution.

“The statement was made”.

The injury suffered by a victim shall not be deemed to fall under the extent of ordinary conditions or inconvenience, or cases where natural healing and daily life are not impeded without the need for treatment.

The injured party suffered from the defendant A, an internal inception room in need of two weeks of treatment.

Recognized.

Defendant

A and D’s misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The crime of causing bodily injury to an ex officio judgment and the crime of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act due to the collection of the claims under confinement is an ordinary competition relationship under Article 40 of the Criminal Act.

The above two crimes are in substantive competition relationship.

This decision of the court below cannot be maintained.

3. The part of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendants is reversed ex officio as the grounds for reversal of the judgment of the court below are reversed, and the part against the Defendants among the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' unfair grounds for sentencing. The judgment below

Criminal facts

Criminal facts and gist of evidence recognized by this court shall be determined by the court below.