All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A, as recorded in the facts charged, did not assault the victim’s inside and after the victim’s injury, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding Defendant A guilty. 2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 2 million won”) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts was erroneous in the lower court’s misunderstanding of facts that Defendant B had not expressed the victim’s desire as stated in the facts charged, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant B had made the victim’s speech that “the part of the Defendant B would teared”. (2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (one million won in fine) is too unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor [Defendant B] 1] misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of the judgment of the court below), the court below acquitted Defendant B on the charge of special intimidation by misunderstanding of facts, although the court below acknowledged the fact that Defendant B had threatened the victim with a dangerous object, based on field CCTV images and victim statements, etc.

2. On June 20, 2018, at least 12:30 on June 20, 2018, Defendant A, the summary of the facts charged, as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, committed assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged, on the ground that the victim D did not provide beatison in the front parking lot of “E” operated by the victim D in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and that he did not do so. (2) Defendant A was also aware of the victim’s inside of the victim, on three occasions, at the lower court, and Defendant A also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the facts that Defendant A abused the victim as described in the facts charged were recognized

3 The judgment of the court below and the trial court have duly adopted and investigated.