All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1: (a) made an answer to Defendant 1 by understanding that “C was not going to and out of the kitchen, even though C was at the time, it did not know whether C did not come to and go to the kitchen; and (b) was a witness’s accurately consistent statement with C’s memory at the time; and (c) as to the question, “A witness was at the time of arrival of the police officer at the site and asked C about the circumstances of the instant case,” although the Defendant was unable to hear exactly whether C was a ice-free conversation at the restaurant, it was impossible for the police officer and C to answer the question, “A talk within the restaurant, and a conversation outside the restaurant was not possible,” and the lower court made an answer to the question that “A witness did not have any influence on the conclusion of the judgment.”

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (2 million won of fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of the court below as to the defendant's assertion, ① around 11:35 March 5, 201, C was sealed in F at the entrance of the Ecafeteria, and the defendant appeared in ice in the above restaurant while ice in the above restaurant, C also made a statement to the police officer dispatched at the time when she was reported, that she was pushed in F. At the time, C was pushed in F. At the time, in order to prevent F.C. in the structure of the restaurant at the time, F. F. At the time, F.C can be pushed down at the entrance near the main entrance, and even if it is out of the main entrance due to the wide area of the cries, the hand outside the main room.