The judgment below

The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. Pronouncement of a penalty shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant D, the facts of injury are acknowledged according to the victim A’s consistent statement and the medical certificate of injury that the Defendant sustained injury in line with the stalle of beer disease, which was committed by the Defendant. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Even if the causal link between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s injury is not recognized, the fact that the Defendant had been a beer of having committed an injury toward the victim is apparent, and therefore, the crime of attempted injury or assault, which is a reduction of the crime of injury, is established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not make a separate judgment as to this part of the reduction is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s punishment (alongly unfair) against Defendant A and B (alongly unfair) (alongly unfair sentence: (b) is deemed to be too uneased and unfair, for each of the following reasons: 8 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; and 3 million won of fine).

2. We examine ex officio the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination prior to determination.

Defendant

D In regard to D, the prosecutor took the facts of the injury which the court below found not guilty for the first time in this court as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of indictment to add the name of the offense as stated in the facts charged, assault and applicable provisions to “crimes” under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and this part of the charges as stated in the facts charged, and applied for the amendment of indictment to add them to “crimes” under this part of the charges. As seen below, this court permitted it, and found the Defendant not guilty as the court below and found the Defendant guilty of the primary facts charged, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant D cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the injury of the defendant D, and the above reasons.