Defendant

C All appeals against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (Defendant A) found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged, on the ground that there was no proof of the facts charged. (2) The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (3) The judgment of the court below, which sentenced the decision of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000, which was sentenced by the court below), is too unfford.

B. Defendant C1) In fact-finding, although the Defendant did not inflict an injury upon the victim H’s chests, side glass, etc. due to sale, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. On January 5, 2012, at around 07:18, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) on the ground that the Defendant and the Victim C photographed the her roof in Gho Lake F in the former YYF on January 5, 2012; (c) on the ground that the Defendant and the Victim C taken the her roof, the Defendant got her flat; and (d) caused the Defendant’s bodily injury, such as flating flat flat flat flat, etc., which requires approximately five weeks of treatment; (b) the lower court’s determination and review of the facts charged; (c) the statements made by the investigative agency and the court of the lower judgment, which correspond to this part of the facts charged, are difficult to believe due to lack of credibility for the reasons indicated in its reasoning; and (d) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone alone, thereby not guilty of this part of the facts charged.