Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is limited to only the husband of the victim and the Defendant A, and there was no physical contact between the victim’s rear timber or between the victim and the victim. (2) The lower court’s assertion of unfair sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The public prosecutor’s sentence against Defendant A (fine 2,00,000) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the allegation of mistake of facts, namely, the victim, following the crime of this case, was committed by the investigative agency, at the time of Defendant A’s delivery of her chest at one time, and the face was divided by Defendant B, and Defendant B, who was next to the crime of this case, also divided the back of her chest with Defendant B, made a detailed statement and made a detailed statement about the damage that she exceeded her own growth, and then prepared and submitted a written statement at the prosecutor’s office. In addition, the victim appeared at the court of the court below for about six months after the crime of this case was committed, and the victim consistently stated the damage from the above Defendants as stated in the investigative agency, as stated in the facts charged, in view of the fact that Defendant A was unable to take part in the opportunity of assaulting the victim and assault the victim, thereby causing injury to the victim, and thus, Defendant B and the victim could not be acknowledged as having been subject to unfair sentencing.