A. As to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants did not insult the victim I as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (hereinafter “the penalty amount of KRW 10 million”) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the witness G at the present site, including B, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, committed the Defendants’ first-hand speech to the police.

In the court of the court below, it cannot be specified whether there are many rains at the time and the surrounding areas and who desire to do so, but Defendants were able to do so together with the police.

The statement; ② The victim I stated that the court below's decision is old to determine how the defendants expressed their desire, but the defendants resisted with B when they expressed their desire.

statement, ③ At the time of dispatch, the police officer

M In light of the fact that in the court below’s judgment, the Defendants expressed the victim I’s desire, and whether the Defendants expressed their desire for a long time is not memory but face, and the Defendants’ behavior is not distinguished. However, in light of the fact that three persons including B and the Defendants during the Defendants’ one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

B. The Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal are examined in light of various sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and arguments regarding the Prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.