The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact-finding is erroneous (1) Defendant A did not appear in the space between Defendant A and the victim G, and Defendant A was not forced by either threatening or threatening the victim’s N, even if Defendant B was aware of the head of the victim’s N in the Jina. A, and the victim’s N in the Jina, but did not force Defendant A by threatening the victim.

(2) Defendant B did not use or force the victim G to commit violence, and did not pose a threat to or assault the victim N, as the victim N would be click.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, community service, 200 hours of imprisonment) against the Defendants on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. An ex officio determination prosecutor changed "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.)" from among the names of the crimes against the Defendants to "special intimidation", and changed the applicable provisions of the Act to "Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act", and applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment to "Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act" in violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Article 283(2) of the facts charged, "Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 283(1)

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants became impossible to maintain as it is due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

B. A decision on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is made, however, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court.

In regard to this, the court below appears to be highly specific and probable in the end of "the summary of evidence" to the victim's investigative agency, and the circumstances leading the victims to reverse their statements in the court below's original court's court.