All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court’s sentencing (a fine of five million won) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Defendants were sentenced to the aforementioned punishment on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendants to have been sentenced to the above punishment. However, the circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial by the prosecutor, such as: (a) the Defendants have already been sentenced to punishment at the lower court; (b) the Defendants have led to the confession of and reflect against the crimes; (c) the Defendants have been dispatched to the police officers who received 112 reports and requested identification; and (d) the Defendants’ use of violence without cooperation with the police officers demanding identification of their status would be very inappropriate conduct; (b) the Defendants, by failing to cooperate with the police officers demanding identification of their status, have shown me and me to launch it.