A. Defendants 1 and 1 did not assault the victim G.

2) Sentencing (Defendant A) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (each fine of five million won) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case. In light of the records and thorough comparison of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below's judgment can be deemed legitimate, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts.

B. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the conditions of sentencing are not changed in comparison with the judgment of the court of first instance on each of the unfair claims of sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the court of first instance solely on the ground that the opinion of the appellate court differs from the opinion of the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the court of first instance because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of all the reasons for sentencing presented by the court of first instance, it is not recognized that the sentencing of the court of first instance was too excessive or unf

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