The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant: (a) although C was next to the Defendant’s assaulting the Victim G; (b) but C was at the price of the victim; (c) the Defendant told C; (d) accordingly, C did not take part in C’s assault; (c) the Defendant did not take part in C’s assault; and (d) as to the joint attack, the Defendant did not take part in C’s assault.

The Court stated that the Defendant was given Kakao Stockholm messages, and that J was working on a vehicle in the same manner as her her walo walo walo walo.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and legal principles, since it was difficult for the Defendant to keep away from the Defendant and the victim to communicate with C who received the vehicle.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the argument of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The Defendant also argued to the same effect as misunderstanding of the above facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the lower court, on this point, held that G entered “F” head office with respect to joint assault, and followed D’s appearance, C was h’s shoulder, and h’s shoulder in the head office, and C was f’s shoulder, and C was f’s head office together with the Defendant and D.

G Pursuant to the conduct of one-time, C is required to take a bath by leaving G, be off with her inner diameter, be off three times with the hand floor, and the Defendant and D was frighting G in the right side of C immediately adjacent to C, and did not engage in any conduct to speak C, G, and J, who is all of the group “dlehh”.

“Crehing sound” was sounded

However, in light of the fact that the defendant and D did not seem to act as the defendant and D, and that the third party, such as the head of the office, told C, etc., it is not clear whether the defendant was the defendant.