A All appeals filed against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A (unfair sentencing) recognized a mistake and reflects it, there is no record of criminal punishment, and the victim B expressed his/her intent that he/she does not want the punishment of Defendant A, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced KRW 3 million is too unreasonable.

B. The degree of damage caused by each of the crimes in this case by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is minor.

In light of the fact that there is a high risk of recidivism and that there is a high risk of recidivism, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced Defendant A to a fine of KRW 3 million and a fine of KRW 1 million to Defendant B is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case committed against Defendant A and the Prosecutor with respect to each of the unlawful arguments in sentencing against Defendant A is not a good crime that: (a) the crime of this case committed against Defendant A and the Prosecutor was committed with joint Defendant B with the victim’s injury while having a dispute with the victim jointly; (b) the victim’s humf with the hand floor; and (c) the victim’s humf with the victim’s humf; and (d) the victim’s injury to the humf with the humf that requires treatment for about eight weeks in consideration of drinking face;

On the other hand, considering the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s mistake is recognized and contradictory; (b) there is no history of criminal punishment; (c) the victim expressed his/her intent that he/she does not want the punishment of Defendant A after receiving compensation for damage; and (d) the conditions of all the sentencing specified in the records and pleadings of the instant case, including Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, degree of damage, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (c) the circumstance after the crime was committed, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable; and (d) the foregoing argument is not deemed unfair because it is too heavy, or too heavy. Therefore, the foregoing argument is without merit.

B. The prosecutor's allegation of sentencing against Defendant B is found to have committed the instant crime by recognizing and opposing the error of Defendant B, and is likely to have committed the instant crime by contingency.