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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of four million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). We examine these legal principles based on the foregoing legal doctrine.

There is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data for the Defendants have not been submitted in the trial court.

In full view of the factors revealed in the course of the pleadings of this case, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing is too unhued and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, it is difficult to see that the attitude of the Defendants’ assault is mainly smuggling or is subject to the punishment. Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine, Defendant A has the record of punishment for one time due to violent crime, and Defendant B has been prior to approximately nine years, and Defendant B is the first offender.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.