All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Judgment on the Defendants’ Appeal

A. The records of this case reveal the following facts: ① the Defendants’ defense counsel (law firm, attorney Kim Jae-hwan) who is dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below submitted a petition of appeal on June 29, 2020 to the court below; ② the Defendant’s wife received the notice of receipt of court records from this court on July 16, 2020 at the above Defendant’s residence; ③ the Defendant’s wife received the notice of receipt of court records from this court on July 17, 2020 at the above Defendant’s residence; ④ the fact that the Defendant’s wife submitted the document of appointment of counsel to this court on August 27, 2020; ⑤ the attorney Kim Jae-hwan, who is in charge of Kim Jae-hwan, submitted the document of appointment of counsel to the court on August 27, 2020; ⑤ the attorney Kim Jae-sik, who was in charge of law firm (L) and the reason why the attorney re-appellant was not in charge, submitted his written opinion on September 4, 2009.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants and the defense counsel did not submit the reasons for appeal within the submission period for the reasons for appeal, and there is no reason to ex officio investigation even after examining the records.

Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that the sentence of the lower court (one year of suspended sentence in April, and a fine of five million won in case of Defendant A) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the process of obstructing the exercise of the victim’s right, the Defendants committed the instant crime, thereby causing serious injury that requires eight weeks medical treatment, and the victim was punished by the victim.