2. Determination

A. Although Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A’s disturbance in the EXPO caused interference with the victim’s business, Defendant A’s product display, etc. by avoiding disturbance in the EXPO, Defendant A did not have any record of being punished for the same kind of crime, and the victim complained of the prior wife by agreement with the victim. In full view of the various sentencing factors indicated in the instant case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, occupation and environment, background and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower judgment against Defendant A is appropriate and unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B was punished for committing the crime of assault, etc., and the risk of committing the crime is not small, it is recognized that Defendant B was not guilty of committing the crime, and that there was no record that Defendant B was punished for committing the same kind of crime, and the degree of injury seems to be minor since the victim was faced with the tag around the left elbow part of the crime, the victim’s appeal by agreement with the victim, and other various sentencing factors indicated in the instant case, such as Defendant B’s age, character and behavior, occupation and environment, background and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower judgment against Defendant B is appropriate and too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.