1. Defendant A prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A is dismissed.

2. Defendant B’s judgment against Defendant B

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and the victim were pushed back to the alleyway near the convenience store indicated in the facts charged, and it did not return to A, and there was only a fact that A was trying to go back to the victim by getting on the victim's front and sitting up, and there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that Defendant B did not have inflicted an injury on the victim by assaulting the victim jointly with A. In view of various circumstances against Defendant B, the lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the content and nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the degree of injury inflicted on the victim, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (the Defendant A: imprisonment for August, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service, and 120 hours of community service) is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant” in this paragraph) can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant B committed an assault and bodily injury jointly with Defendant A as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1 The victim went back from the investigative agency to the trial court of the party, and passed side A, which is disputed with the son in the convenience store, within the convenience store, and A was under the influence of alcohol, and continued to go up with the trial expenses;

According to CCTV, A first left the convenience point after coming out of, and according to CCTV, when the victim is calculated, A was confirmed to have come out of the first place, several persons including A and the Defendant were in front of the convenience point, and A.