All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 stated as if the lower court acknowledged the facts charged, but whether the presiding judge asked of whether the facts charged are admitted or not to acknowledge that the Defendant was under trial as the facts charged, such as reading by the prosecutor.

This is because “the purpose of” was erroneously understood.

Therefore, the confession at the court of the court below of the defendant does not have credibility as a mistake, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is proved as the facts charged of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We first examine the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts that the confession in the original court was made by mistake.

Based on November 10, 2015, the first trial date of the court below was open, the defendant was a university student of 23 years in 2015.

Since the defendant exercised the right to refuse to make statements in an investigative agency, he seems to have been well aware of the meaning of the right to refuse to make statements, and was notified in the court below that he had the right to refuse to make statements.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not exercise the right to refuse to make statements and responded to questions of the presiding judge who asked whether to recognize the facts charged, and cannot be viewed as having a special intellectual ability to understand whether to ask questions about whether to recognize the facts charged.

In addition, the defendant did not make a statement to the effect that he did not assault the police officer even in the last statement.

In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant’s assertion that confession at the lower court was made by mistake is difficult to accept.

In addition, according to the single video CD (Evidence No. 21 of the evidence list), the defendant, along with the participants in the assembly, runs away from the two arms, and the police officers in the future are going behind.