All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the police statement of the victim F and “the part of the witness M in the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant B” constitutes hearsay evidence and there is no admissibility and credibility of evidence, the lower court, which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged, based on the above evidence, was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles. 2) In light of all the sentencing conditions of unfair sentencing sentencing, the lower court’s sentence ( fine of KRW 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In spite of the occurrence of injury to Defendant B’s victim F, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapon, etc., injury by a deadly weapon, etc.) among the facts charged against Defendant B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions, the lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and forty hours of attendance order for violent therapy) is too unreasonable.

C. A prosecutor 1) According to the statement by the victim N, etc. of an misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B), although Defendant B was aware of the fact of assaulting the victim N on November 20, 2010, around 22:30, 2010, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the charge of assault, among the charges against Defendant B, despite the fact of assaulting the victim N on November 20, 2010.

B) According to S’s statement, etc. on November 8, 2008, the court below found Defendant B not guilty of the fraud among the facts charged against Defendant S, despite the fact that Defendant B conspired with S and obtained 3,500,000 won under the name of advance payment from the victimY by deceiving the victimY at X-si located in Si, Gunsan-si around 14:00 on November 8, 2008, and obtained 3,500,000 won from the victimY, the court below erred by mistake of facts. 2) In light of all the sentencing conditions of unfair sentencing (as against the Defendants), the court below