Each of the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(b).

1. The second instance court's judgment of dismissal of prosecution as to each of the charges of violence among the facts charged, and sentenced guilty as to the remaining charges. Since the prosecutor appealeds on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing only for the guilty part of the judgment below, the dismissal of prosecution as above became final and conclusive separately, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the first instance court and the second instance court's conviction.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s first instance judgment, the Defendant did not have exercised his authority like the facts charged. 2) The first instance court’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s second sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unfased and unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, this Court tried to examine the two cases of appeal against the defendant by combining two cases of appeal against the defendant, and each of the crimes in the first and second judgment of convictions in the first and second judgment of convictions are concurrent crimes as defined in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the convictions in the first and second judgment of convictions cannot be maintained as they are.

However, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding of facts on the first judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

4. The victim C made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that the defendant's assertion of mistake is "the case as stated by the investigative agency, although not memory". The victim made a statement at the investigative agency that "the defendant was able to avoid a disturbance without any calculation" and "the defendant was able to avoid a disturbance without any calculation". The victim made and submitted to the investigative agency.