The judgment below

The part against Defendant A, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts does not have any fact that the Defendant was knife at the time of the instant crime (the Defendant B was knife), and after the police was dispatched, there was no fact that the Defendant was when he was sent to the first-aid vehicle.

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Since it is recognized that Defendant C conspired with Defendant A and B and assaulted Victim K as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant C, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

Each sentence of the lower court on Defendant A and B (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and Defendant B: imprisonment for eight months) on the grounds that the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

A The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination of misunderstanding of facts as to A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and mental and physical disorder, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that not only B but also the Defendant and the Victim F who was sent to the first-aid vehicle was sufficiently recognized.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

According to the records on the assertion of mental disorder, even though the defendant was in a state of drinking at the time of the above crime, in light of various circumstances, such as the course and process of the crime, means and method, and the defendant's speech and behavior before and after the crime, the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking.

Since it seems that the defendant was either in or weak conditions, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

prosecutor's mistake of facts.