The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The court below dismissed the prosecution against the defendant among the facts charged in this case, and acquitted the defendant as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.), and sentenced the defendant to ten months by recognizing the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (abrut Injury, etc.) and the guilty of the injury.

However, the prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing as to the acquittal portion, and the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court below on the ground of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the conviction portion and unreasonable sentencing.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of this court shall be limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the acquittal part.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) by recognizing that there was a purpose of retaliation against the Defendant, but committed assault by the Defendant C and I on each of their respective statutory statements (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is so unreasonable that it is so unreasonable that there was no retaliation in light of the following: (a) the victim’s desire and reflects, the degree of assault is minor, and the victim’s body was strong.

B. Prosecutor 1) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (misunderstanding of facts as to the damaged part of a group, deadly weapon, etc.) (the victim C and F’s statement to the effect that no one exists as the Defendant collected beer’s disease and leads the victim C, and that there is no other indication as to the damaged part of a group, deadly weapon, etc.), is different from their investigative agency’s statement, as well as hospital and global CCTV, budget trine hospital emergency medical technician I’s statement and J’s statement.