All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant 1 did not err by mistake of facts (as to the crime of violence), the Defendant did not assault the victim in provoking as stated in this part of the facts charged. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (as to a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim has consistently made a statement at an investigative agency by the defendant fiff three times in fiff, ② the witness at the scene at the time of the case also stated at the police that "the defendant was fiffing the victim's vessel several times in fiff," and there are no other special circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement, ③ the defendant also recognized the fact that fiff, was fiffed at the time of the case, and that fiff, it corresponds to the above statements of the victim and D (Article 26 and 33 of the evidence record of the case). In full view of these circumstances, the fact that fiff, as described in this part of the facts charged, the defendant abused the victim's vessel three times in fiff, as in this part, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial, and there is no change in the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment.