The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months, by a fine of 2,00,000 won.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A (4 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not commit an assault against the victim in collaboration with Defendant A at the meeting room of the occupants representative of the apartment of this case, and even if such fact is recognized, it constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below, upon the amendment of the indictment, applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content that the place of the crime was changed from the "G Apartment Management Office" to the "the first floor corridor of the G Apartment Management Office," among the facts charged. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the part of Defendant B's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, except the place of crime, is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B

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 requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. In addition, several persons are aware of another person's crime on the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime using it (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 191). A co-principal who jointly processes a crime and commits a crime by two or more persons, not necessarily need to be directly and explicitly made, but can be made implicitly and implicitly.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6103, Jan. 24, 2003; 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). Meanwhile, the Criminal Act is applicable.