The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which decided that the defendant committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (joint assault) although the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a joint assault against the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "When two or more persons jointly commit a crime of injury or assault" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them, and that there is a case where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity and used it in the same place.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991). Examining the evidence adopted by the lower court in light of the evidence, it can be recognized that the Defendant and Nonindicted Party B assaulted the victim E in the same place and the same opportunity, and used it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant committed a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (joint assault) is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the establishment of joint assault as alleged in the grounds of

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance judgment was judged to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing criteria.