All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts with G did not constitute injury to the victim as stated in the instant facts charged, in collaboration with G.

B. The lower court’s punishment (the Defendants: KRW 2,00,000, each of the fines for negligence) that the Defendants alleged unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court examined the Victim F as a witness and directly reported and observed the form and attitude at the time of making a statement, consistency, clarity, and accuracy of the statements, etc., and subsequently, there is credibility of the said witness’s statement concerning the facts charged in the

The decision was determined.

In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act adopted by our Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court, unless there are special circumstances, shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s determination that recognized the credibility of the above witness’s statement cannot be deemed significantly unfair, and in full view of the above victim’s statement, the Defendants may sufficiently and sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants inflicted injury on the above victim, such as the facts stated in the facts charged in the lower judgment, together with G, can be recognized.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① The said victim was assaulted by the Defendants and G from the investigative agency to the court of the court below.

The contents of the statement are consistent and specific, and the contents of the statement are consistent and consistent with some of the recording records in which the contents of the conversation between the Defendants and the victims are recorded at the time, and it is judged that the credibility of the statement is high.

② R, which is the same as the Defendants and the victims, was the most closely related to the Defendant A in the prosecution investigation.