The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B (excluding the part on compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

B The judgment of the court below is held.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment of dismissal of prosecution as to Defendant A’s assault among the facts charged against Defendant A, and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the remainder of the facts charged against Defendant A.

Therefore, inasmuch as a prosecutor and Defendant A appealed only the guilty part and the dismissal part of the public prosecution is separately confirmed, the scope of this court’s judgment is limited to the guilty part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A: Defendant A: The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy. (2) Defendant B: the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) with prison labor for each of the crimes other than fraud listed in the [Attachment Table No. 13] among the crimes in the case No. 2019 high-class451 of the original judgment, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the [Attachment Table No. 13] and the [Attachment Table No. 2019 high-class451 of the [Attachment Table No. 13] is too heavy.

B. Public prosecutor’s unreasonable sentencing - The lower court’s respective punishment on the Defendants is too minor.

3. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s arguments below judgment as to Defendant A.

All of the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as an unfavorable element in relation to the sentencing in the trial court and the circumstances alleged by the defendant as an favorable element in the court below’s oral proceedings, and there is no change of circumstances in relation to the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the court below.

In addition to the fact that each of the crimes of this case is in a concurrent relationship between the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization and activity of an organization, etc.) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below determined the punishment by fully considering all the circumstances that the defendant and the prosecutor already asserted as the grounds for appeal, and it cannot be deemed that such a punishment is too minor, or that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion on the judgment of sentencing of the court because it is too minor

Therefore, prosecutor and Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

4. The defendant.