2. The conclusion that the Defendants led to the confession, reflect, and not reoffending of the instant crime; the fact that the Defendants appear to have committed a contingent crime after drunking; that the victim agreed with F, who was the victim of the assault, and the said victim did not want to punish the Defendants; that Defendant A and B had a family member to support the Defendants; Defendant A and B had no criminal record of the same kind of criminal record and fine; Defendant C had no criminal record beyond the same criminal record and fine, etc. in favor of each of the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by Defendant A and B, under the influence of alcohol, assaulted the Victim F F, the main owner of the business without any particular reason. Defendant C, upon the victim’s report, assaulted the police officer dispatched to the scene by putting in uniform with the victim’s return, and committed an act of disturbance for about two hours even after being arrested as a flagrant offender and served with a police box, and the nature of the crime is inferior to each of the Defendants.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances and other factors of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.