A. Each court below's punishment against the Defendants (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of probation, community service order 120 hours, violent therapy lecture 40 hours, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and suspended execution 2 years, community service order 120 hours, violence therapy lecture 40 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the lower court’s punishments against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, as the materials for new sentencing are not submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, and the sentencing revealed during the pleadings of the instant case is too heavy or unabreed so that the sentencing revealed in the instant case goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, and

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.