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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the Defendant’s assault, which caused the injury, based on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

However, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the part of the facts charged of this case. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the part not guilty against the Defendants (the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name) can be found to have been registered in the sole name of Defendant B, even though the Defendants jointly purchased the instant land and buildings.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won in penalty) against Defendant A, which is unfair in sentencing, is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) As the crime of causing bodily harm by an aggravated offender is separately stipulated from the crime of causing bodily harm under the Criminal Act regarding the part not guilty (the point of causing bodily harm) of Defendant A, the crime of causing bodily harm is not sufficient to establish the crime of causing bodily harm and the intention of causing bodily harm should be recognized.

Therefore, in order to apply the crime of injury to the defendant, at least, the defendant must be proved to have used violence against the victim with the intention to inflict injury on the victim, such as recognition and acceptance of the result of the injury.

In this case, in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that it is difficult to recognize the defendant's intentional act of injury is just and acceptable, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.