All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion by the misunderstanding of the legal principles of Defendant A and D, the crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of tangible force against a human body, and the exercise of such tangible force refers to physical pain.

In addition, Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the so-called "when two or more persons jointly commit the crime of injury or assault" exist between them, and it is the case where several persons are aware of the crimes committed by another person in the same opportunity at the same place and commit the crime using them. In a joint principal offender who jointly processes and commits the crime jointly, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily need to be made directly and explicitly, and in order, it may not be made explicitly and explicitly, and in any case, a combination of intent to jointly process the crime and realize it jointly. If the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective element are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have a substantial relation with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do430, Nov. 28, 2013).

The decision was determined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on assault and assault, joint assault, and the crime of non-violation of intention, etc., by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the violation of the law of logic and experience.

2. The defendant.