Of the judgment of the first instance, the parts on the defendant A, B, and D and the second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the non-guilty part of the first instance judgment [the non-guilty part] of the non-guilty part of the first instance judgment [the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint attack) against the victim H]], although the Defendants were found to have given the victim a strong amount to H with the criminal intent of attack, such as H’s statement and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part because the Defendants did not look at all the circumstances and misjudgmentd the facts only to the part of H’s statement, and found them not guilty. 2) In relation to the first instance judgment, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (the Defendant A: 3 years and six months imprisonment, and Defendant B: 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor prior to the determination of ex officio.

The Court held that each appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated and tried, and that each offense against the defendant A in the judgment of the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part against the defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the second judgment cannot be maintained any more.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged (of the facts charged against Defendant A and B, the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) against Defendant D and the facts charged against Defendant D) found on November 25, 2014 at the victim H’s home, the mother of J as stated in the first instance judgment on the facts charged of the crime of Gangnam-si around 22:40 on November 25, 2014, the Defendants found at the victim He (Y, 54 years of age). Defendant A, the victim, “Ping years, hinging years, and hings.