All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) Defendant B was driven on July 12, 2015 when Defendants alleged the misunderstanding of facts, and Defendant A did not drive the king bathing beach.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of driving without a license for Defendant A and an offender against Defendant B on the premise that Defendant A was driving. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, Defendant B: fine of 3 million won) declared by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to Defendant A), Defendant A would change the seat to Defendant B in order to avoid the crackdown on driving without a license.

The indirect evidence that actively proposed was proved by indirect evidence.

Nevertheless, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above types of punishment, which the court below decided against the Defendants, are too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The defendants asserted that the judgment of the court below is identical to the above facts as alleged in the above facts, and the court below rejected the judgment in its reasoning. In light of the judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion that Defendant A driven the instant car without a driver’s license, and the Defendant B had the Defendant escape, but submitted by the Prosecutor.