The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant A are all reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months) imposed by the court below on the defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C1) The Defendants do not pose a risk of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which led to the injury of the Defendants.

2) Each sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the Defendants (Defendant B: one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, Defendant C: one year and six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The court of the first instance on the consolidated reversal rendered a decision to jointly examine each appeal case of the judgment below against Defendant A.

Since each crime of the judgment below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment for which concurrent crimes are aggravated by judgment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the second instance cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The amendment of the indictment to the indictment was made in the first instance, and the crime of inflicting bodily injury on the person carrying a deadly weapon among the facts charged in the instant case was modified by this court upon the application of Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to “Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the same Act.”

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the part against Defendant A could no longer be maintained in this respect.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if Defendant B and C’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, this is examined below.

3. Defendant B and C’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.