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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Defendant A’s photograph taken on the day of the instant case (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), not only the upper body, but also the upper body was flicked to be flicked (12 pages of the investigation record). Accordingly, in light of the fact that Defendant A was issued with a diagnosis that the injured party suffered an injury, such as a flicking and flicking part of the body requiring medical treatment at the M hospital on the day of the instant case, on November 11, 2016, by receiving medical treatment from the M hospital on the day of the instant case, the injured party suffered an injury, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that this part of the charge was committed by the Defendant at the time of the injured party.

In addition, at a case site;

In light of the fact that F and E made a statement at the lower court consistent with the lower court’s ruling that “the Defendant did not release the victim’s timber,” it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as a passive resistance to defend himself/herself from an unfair attack by the victim, which constitutes a legitimate defense.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence of the lower court (the suspended sentence of KRW 700,000,000) against Defendant B on the part against Defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to Defendant A’s assertion, and the lower court acquitted Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the circumstances described in the reasoning of the lower judgment, including the following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court. In other words, the victim assaulted Defendant’s face on seven occasions by drinking, i.e., the Defendant’s chest and head’s hair and head’s hair on two occasions (the victim committed the aforementioned facts charged on December 14, 2016).