All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 did not inflict an injury on the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a mistake of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, following the Defendant’s argument and judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine whether sentencing is unfair and whether the Defendant and the prosecutor’s unreasonable claims.

It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable 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, but differs from the view of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court on the ground that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court on the ground that there is no submission of new data on sentencing in the first instance court, and in full view of the reasons revealed in the course of the records and changes of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unflu

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, this part of the argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.