The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to ① special assault, the victim C did not have any fact to be a drinking disease, and only was a misunderstanding of plastic materials, which cannot be deemed as a dangerous object under Article 261 of the Criminal Act. ② With respect to the special injury, the injury suffered by the victim B is merely a minor figure, and thus does not constitute an injury under Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act. 2) The sentence of the lower court sentenced to unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 240 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant B: fine of KRW 3 million, and fine of KRW 3 million) on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. As to the argument on special assault against Defendant A, the lower court acknowledged Defendant A’s special assault against the victim C as “the victim was faced with alcohol disease, which is a dangerous object, and was assaulted by the victim’s head.” The victim B made a statement at the lower court that the victim C was sick by the victim’s head. However, the victim C himself was in line with the aforementioned statement at the lower court court’s court court, but he stated that the victim C himself was in line with plastic material, but he was in several times of the Defendant’s disease with his head, and the witness, who is an employee at the main place where the crime was committed in this case, was committed by Defendant A, at the lower court, at the time of attaching B and the victim’s second rank, and one of these diseases was in line with the victim’s head, and thus, he made a statement that the victim C was in line with the victim’s head. Therefore, the victim’s special assault was acknowledged as being the victim’s injury of the victim.”