The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts is that the defendants merely engaged in the flapsing of the victim, but did not inflict any injury on the victim's face, such as the statement in the facts charged, and the injury alleged to be suffered by the victim is a minor degree to be naturally cured.

The punishment of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of two million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants can be found to have inflicted an injury on the victim for about 14 days, as stated in the facts charged. The above injury does not interfere with daily life and does not constitute an extremely minor injury that can natural therapy within a short time.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unfair sentencing, has its own territory of the first instance court with respect to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.