1. Of the judgment below, the remainder of the judgment below excluding the dismissal of prosecution against Defendant A and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1’s testimony to the effect that “A was made at the time of the instant case, and there was no fact of drinking or participating in fighting against the other party” is consistent with the truth, and it does not go against the Defendant’s memory. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (a fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

B. According to relevant evidence such as L’s statement against Defendant A, it is recognized that the Defendant abused Defendant N due to beer’s disease.

B) According to relevant evidence, such as the statement of H, etc., with respect to Defendant B, it is recognized that the Defendant jointly inflicted an injury on the victim H.) Defendant C, as seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant jointly inflicted an injury on the victim H is recognized.

Therefore, the Defendant’s testimony that “B does not know about H is a false statement contrary to the Defendant’s memory.”

B. The Defendant’s testimony to the effect that “A has consistently indicated that he/she was faced with the victim I’s face due to the beer disease of A, and that he/she was at the site at the time, and thus, at a location where A was able to easily know that he/she was holding the beer disease as the victim.” In light of the foregoing, the Defendant’s testimony to the effect that “A is nothing more than keeping the beer disease with or with the victim I, but merely carrying it to I, is nothing more than keeping it to the victim I, is a false statement contrary to the Defendant’s memory.”

2) The lower court’s sentence (defendant A and C): imprisonment of one year and six months; suspended sentence of three years; community service order of 80 hours; Defendant C: fine of seven million won is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, L, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, are consistent between B and B.