The part concerning Defendant R and C in the judgment of the court of first instance and the part concerning Defendant C and A in the judgment of the court of second instance, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant R 1’s punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant R (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the case of joint injury, etc. by Defendant H1 as indicated in the first instance judgment of the court below, Defendant H1’s injury part against Defendant AP is an emergency evacuation or self-defense. The injury part against Defendant AP is an act to protect an infant in the above AX as at the time Defendant C’s unfair infringement of the current status of the above AP against Defendant C’s denial X, and the injury to the victim’s her inner part, such as the safety release blood relative to the victimN, is not when Defendant H, but when the above Defendant C was committed. Nevertheless, the first instance court which convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The first instance court, which found the judgment of the court below against the Defendant, was erroneous by misapprehending the facts as to this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months with prison labor, and 3 months imprisonment with prison labor for the crime as indicated in the judgment).

C. Defendant C’s 1 and 2’s each sentence sentenced to Defendant C (the first instance court’s sentence: 5 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 1 year of probation, 60 hours of community service, 20 hours of imprisonment: 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, and probation) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's second sentence (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, three years of probation, community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C in relation to Defendant C, the first and second judgments were rendered to Defendant C, and the first and second judgments were rendered to Defendant C, and Defendant C filed each appeal to the first and second judgment. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. The first and the second judgment with respect to Defendant C are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be pronounced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.