All the judgment below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts caused damage to Defendant F by Defendant B, only the victim was put up until the police without the intention of the assault, since the victim F damaged Defendant B’s object.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (each of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A recognized the fact that he had fatd the victim’s fat at the time, and Defendant B also recognized the fact that he had the victim’s fatdation at the time. However, insofar as the Defendants exercised the fatd power over another’s body, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants did not have the intent of assault.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant A did not merely have the victim, but he saw flickly with the intent of assault, and the defendant B also saw this flick and flickly flick with the victim's blick and flick with the victim's blickness. However, it is reasonable to view the defendants' act as an attack exceeding the necessary scope for the arrest of a flagrant offender.

The Defendants’ assertion in this part is without merit.

B. The Defendants did not agree with the victim on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and Defendant A had a record of being punished four times due to violent crimes, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

However, the victim first damages the goods owned by the Defendant B and caused the Defendants to commit the instant crime at a corresponding level; there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime; Defendant B appears to have not been compensated for damage to the crime of causing property damage from the victim up to the present; Defendant B did not have much weighted to the extent of the use of the victim; and the Defendants did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and there are other favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct.