The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant was closely involved in the victims, the defendant did not commit such an act jointly or jointly with B.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of injury or assault" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, several persons should be aware that they committed the crime of another person in the same opportunity at the same place and have used the same opportunity.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013). Moreover, in relation to accomplices that two or more persons jointly process in a crime, public offering does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. As such, even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, then a public offering relationship is established if there was a series of two or more persons successively or implicitly.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier and evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant jointly committed assault with B is sufficiently acceptable, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Unreasonable sentencing.