All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged in the instant case charged on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts, since the Defendant was only an intentional assault and did not have an intentional bodily injury.

2) Even if the facts charged in this case are found guilty, the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee (hereinafter “Sentencing guidelines”) in the case of the instant crime fall under both “the case where an intentional intentional act is committed” and “the case where the victim is also liable for the occurrence of crime or the expansion of damage” among the factors to be mitigated, and thus, the scope of the recommended sentencing according to the sentencing guidelines for the instant crime falls under both “the case where the victim is also liable for the occurrence of crime or the expansion of damage.” As such, the grounds for appeal for the year to four years to four years to which the mitigation area was applied are indicated as “two years to four years” but they seem to be a clerical error.

Despite the fact that the court below did not fully reflect the factors of mitigation among the above special sentencing factors, and applied the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the crime of this case to 3 to 5 years, which is the basic area, and (B) in conclusion, the sentence (4 years, which the court below sentenced to the defendant) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted in the lower court as alleged in the misapprehension of the facts and legal principles, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on this part by comparing the evidence legitimately admitted and investigated, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and therefore, the Defendant’

B. Illegal assertion of sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor