All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (1) Defendant A only told the victims and the victims of the trial, and there was no assault against the victims in collaboration with Defendant B as stated in the judgment of the court below.

(2) Although Defendant B had only one son with the victim G, he did not assault the victims jointly with Defendant A as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of 5 million won, Defendant B: a fine of 3 million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants may jointly and severally recognize the facts of assault against the victims as stated in the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

① After the occurrence of the instant case, the victim G, H, I, and J made a specific statement that they had been assaulted by the police as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and there is no inconsistency or disagreement with the above victims’ statements.

② The victims stated in the court of the court below that the contents stated by the police in the court of the court below are exaggerations of facts, and that they are not well memory in a drunken state at the time of the instant case.

However, there seems to be a possibility that the victims made a statement by reducing facts in the court below's direction favorable to the Defendants in order to the Defendants, on the basis of the relationship that the Defendants and the Defendants agreed smoothly on December 21, 2014.

③ At the time of receipt of a total of 112 reports regarding the instant case, and the statements of witnesses are also able to see that there are entangleds by several persons. As such, the victims were replaced by the following: (a) the victim H was in contact with the Defendants and a female, a single-class woman on the part of the victim, were able to see the victim’s statements.