Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not have inflicted an injury on the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that Defendant A, together with Defendant B and C, inflicted an injury on the victim on the sole basis of the victim’s statement without credibility. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment for each of the defendants) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts also asserted the same purport as the above assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement of its decision.

The circumstances duly explained by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, Defendant A made a statement at the prosecution to the effect that “Defendant A was a victim at the first time.” Defendant B had a cell phone at the next place, and Defendant B had a cell phone at a place less than 70 to 80 meters from the next place, and made a statement favorable to Defendant A unlike Defendant A’s statement, the credibility of the statement falls short of the credibility. Defendant A refused to make a statement in the process of examining the police suspect, and Defendant B, who is a blind village, acted as such in order to protect Defendant A in the situation where Defendant B was subject to criminal punishment. However, this is not easily obtained, Defendant A did not have any act of assault, Defendant A did not have any fact that the victim did not have committed any assault, and Defendant B did not have to have made a false statement in light of the fact that the victim did not have made any accusation.