All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1 of the misunderstanding of facts stated in the facts charged: (a) Defendant A made a statement to the effect that he reported the fact of medication of narcotics by the victim; (b) Defendant A did not have the intent to threaten the victim; and (c) Defendant A did not have any intent to obstruct the performance of official duties by threatening his employees; and (d) Defendant A did not interfere with the business as described in the facts charged with the obstruction of official duties; (b) Defendant A of the misunderstanding of facts stated in the facts charged; (c) Defendant A of the misunderstanding of facts stated in the facts charged; and (d) Defendant A of the misunderstanding of the fact that there was no interference with the business as described in the facts charged with the obstruction of official duties. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged; and (b) the sentence that the lower court pronounced on the Defendant

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) and special injury against Defendant B) 2, as indicated in the facts charged, Defendant A’s act of assaulting the victim with a brick, which is an object dangerous to the victim, as indicated in the facts charged, can be acknowledged that the victim was injured jointly with Defendant A, and at the same time, the victim was injured, and the victim was injured by carrying a dangerous object. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged. 2) The sentence imposed by the court of unfair sentencing on the Defendants by the court below is too unreasonable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. As to the allegation of mistake of facts against Defendant A, Defendant A also asserted to the same effect as the aforementioned assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court made a judgment on this point.