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

1. The lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, dismissed the public prosecution as to Defendant A’s assault and convicted the Defendants of the remainder of the charges.

Therefore, since only the prosecutor appealed against the Defendants, and did not appeal against the dismissal of prosecution, the dismissal of prosecution as to Defendant A’s assault against the Defendants and the Prosecutor did not appeal was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below against Defendant B.

2. In light of various sentencing conditions, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal that Defendant A had a majority of the records of the same crime, Defendant B committed the instant joint injury during the period of suspension of execution, and the victim’s injury was serious, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, etc.; 10 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

3. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the following: (a) there are many criminal records with respect to Defendant A; (b) Defendant B committed the instant joint injury during the suspended execution period due to fraud; (c) the injury of the victim caused by the Defendants’ joint injury was considerably heavy; and (d) the Defendants did not make any effort to recover the damage to the victim as well as the Defendants did not receive a letter from the victim. In short, the Defendants need to be punished strictly.

However, it appears that the victim was partially responsible for the occurrence of the crime of joint injury of this case, and the defendant A did not live 20 at the time of the crime of joint injury of this case.