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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Illegal sentencing (as to Defendant A and B), the sentence against the Defendants of the lower court (a fine of two million won per fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant C also abused himself at an investigative agency by misunderstanding of facts (defendant A and C) (defendant A and C)

In light of the fact that Defendant C’s act appears to be a threat to the fact that Defendant C, in collaboration with Defendant A, made a statement in the lower court that Defendant C was the victim’s head debt, and that Defendant C was the victim’s head debt, K may recognize the fact that the injury was inflicted by assaulting the victim’s head debt jointly with Defendant C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant C of the facts charged, and acquitted Defendant A of the joint injury on the grounds thereof, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A and C) 1 of this part of the facts charged in this part of this part of the charges, the part against Defendant C in each part of the charges, and the part against Defendant C of this part of the charges, “When Defendant A assaulted the Victim G within the F alcohol house located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, on September 27, 2016, Defendant C, in combination therewith, was put into line with Defendant A, thereby causing injury to the Victim G, such as the damage of the stimulity of two parts requiring medical treatment for a period of 14 days,” and the part against Defendant A, jointly with Defendant C, suffered injury to the Victim G.

2) The lower court determined that the CCTV images submitted by the prosecutor as evidence are confirmed only by the images where the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim, and the Defendant’s act of collecting the victim’s head is not confirmed. The victim was unaware of whether he was in contact with the Defendant in this court, but the main employee was aware of whether he was in contact with the Defendant.