All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The misunderstanding of facts was the victim’s desire, but did not assault the victim.

Defendant

B: The victim was not threatened.

B. Illegal Defendant B’s sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the difference between the original court and the appellate court’s method of assessing the credibility of a witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment, the lower court’s judgment was clearly erroneous in determining the credibility of the witness’s statement in light of the contents of the original judgment and the evidence duly examined in the original judgment.

If there are extenuating circumstances to see the lower court’s judgment as to the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court, or in full view of the results of the examination of evidence at the lower court and the results of additional examination conducted until the closing of oral proceedings, it is not significantly unfair to maintain the lower court’s judgment as they are, the appellate court rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the lower court did not use violence and intimidation as alleged facts in the grounds for appeal, even though the Defendants asserted that the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of facts, solely on the ground that the lower court’s judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the lower court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do494, Nov. 24, 2006; 2011Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012).

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is no evidence to reverse the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. Determination on the unfair argument of sentencing (defendant B) is made by the Defendant.