2. Defendant A’s imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B’s fine for three million won, respectively.

A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in August, and four million won in fine in case of Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

(B) The defendant B withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the prosecutor’s partial statement, victim T’s statement, etc., Defendant B’s participation in Defendant A’s attack as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment below can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

On the other hand, the above sentence imposed by the court below on the defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine are based on the detailed circumstances stated in the item of “the part on acquittal” of the judgment, on the ground that “the Defendant B shall not have recruited the above crime, nor have there be any evidence in which the money was written in installments, or in which

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendants and the Prosecutor.

The crime of this case was committed by the victims when considering that the Defendants were the reporters' status, and had them receive money from the victims or to have them do an act for which they did not have any duty to do so, considering the attitude that the Defendants thought that they had reported the environmental issues at the construction site or filed a civil petition with an administrative agency. This is to say that the Defendants were aware of the public interest role as reporters beyond the scope of normal coverage, and is highly likely to cause social harm