All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In full view of the prosecutor’s (1) the diagnosis of injury against the victim A, the statement of the victim and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor against the defendant B, the facts charged against the defendant B are fully found guilty.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant B is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing against Defendant A (500,000 won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (1) There is no fact that the Defendant misunderstanding the facts as stated in the facts charged, as stated in the facts charged.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On February 21, 2016, the summary of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake as to the facts as to the Defendant B, Defendant B, at around the house E located in Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju-gu around 12:20, was assaulted by the victim A, against which the victim’s flap was set up, and the victim was flaped once by hand, and caused the victim to go against the head in the above house gate and go beyond the ground floor.

As a result, Defendant B suffered injury to the victim, such as “Adromatic pressure pressure 1,” which requires approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

(2) According to the witness G’s statement, injury diagnosis, response to appraisal commission, medical records, and records of emergency patients, etc., the victim A left the emergency room of the hospital by being loaded in the 119 first-aid vehicle after he/she claimed to Defendant B at around 12:20 on February 21, 2016. The hospital was diagnosed in the hospital under the name of “emergency pressure pressure pressure table No. 1” and “the blood transfusion from the credit props” and the victim’s above name appears to have occurred due to credit.

On this issue, the defendant B.