The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of seven million won, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The court below found Defendant A guilty on the charge of assaulting Victim B among the facts charged against Defendant A, and sentenced Defendant B guilty on the charge of assaulting the Victim B, and sentenced Defendant B guilty on the charge of injuring the Victim B, which is the primary facts charged in the case No. 2018 Go-Ma2816.

As to this, Defendant A appealed on the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing as to the acquittal portion of Defendant A and the guilty portion, and thus, the dismissal of the aforementioned public prosecution is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A The sentence of imprisonment (4 months for imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact-finding case of a public prosecutor (defendant A), since the victim B committed violence with Defendant A, C, and J, etc. on the part of Si expenses, the investigative agency is in charge of the statement of damage and the circumstances of the case, so it is difficult to view that the victim B’s statement in the investigation agency of the victim B is more reliable than the legal statement of the court below, and C and J have stated that when considering the fact that Defendant A and the victim B were wn at the victim B’s entrance when considering the fact that they were wnished, the victim B’s legal statement of the court below is reliable, and thus, the victim B’s primary charges can be found guilty.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the primary charged facts on different premise, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake, Defendant A.