The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months, and Defendant C.

1. Defendant C’s defense counsel on the gist of the grounds of appeal asserts that, through the written opinion of the public trial on April 6, 2016, which was submitted by the date on which the appeal was not timely filed, “Juvenile M, J,O, P, Q, R, and N, a person who employs a juvenile, and Defendant C did not employ the above juvenile,” the joint defendant in the lower court’s judgment, and Defendant C did not employ the above juvenile. This cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal, and the ex officio examination is without merit.

A. As to the misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant A) [2015 Godan 323] part, although the Defendant did not have abused the victim, the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged, which led to an misunderstanding of the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is unfair as it is too unreasonable. The sentence of the lower court (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor applied “Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.)” in the name of the offense against Defendant A as “special injury” and “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law, “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment by this court, and the remaining criminal facts against Defendant A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant A's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. We examine the Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine.