A. Defendant C does not have an assaulted victim T.

B. As to the sentence sentenced by the lower court, the Defendants alleged that the sentence was too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence was too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the specific circumstances, etc., the judgment of the court below as to the Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of the facts may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant C has taken the victim’s hand saws, which exist in the victim’s hand saw by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the victim as the perpetrator.

Therefore, Defendant C assaulted the victim.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of mistake of facts.

B. Defendant C only contests the facts about the crime of assault, and both Defendants are contrary to the recognition of their crimes.

Both Defendants have a record of being punished by a fine and a fine (B once, A, and C twice, respectively) for the same kind of crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the purpose of assembly; (b) the Defendants’ status and degree of participation; (c) the degree and method of assault by Defendant C; and (d) the contents and methods of ordinary traffic interference; and other various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the pleadings and records, such as the Defendants’ age, environment, and motive and means of crime, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants is too heavy or unbrupted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and thus, cannot be deemed unfair.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the defendants' and prosecutor's arguments on this part.

3. As such, 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.