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

1. The main reasons for appeal are as follows: each of the punishments imposed by the court below on the Defendants (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unfford and unfair.

2. The Defendants did not reach an agreement with the victim even though the degree of injury suffered by the victim was considerably significant due to the instant crime, and Defendant B was subject to criminal punishment for a single fine due to the crime of injury.

However, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and are in profoundly against their depth, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances, considering that the instant crime was committed in the process of fighting between the Defendants and the victims.

In addition, the defendants made efforts to recover damage by depositing two million won for the victim in the court below, and the defendant A is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment, and the defendant B also has no record of crime except for the punishment of one fine.

In addition, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial of the party.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

3. The Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 2(2)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc., in the application of the judgment of the court below, the term “Article 2(2)3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc.,” in the part of “the pertinent Article of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., as to the crime of 1.” (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016) is obvious that it is a clerical error of “Article 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.”