All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) stated that “the victim must meet due to trial” after the defendant was prosecuted for the crime that the victim inflicted on before the trial date, which led to interview of the victim before the trial date of the above case, and how the defendant stated that “the document was written at the time of the trial” in the cafeteria where the victim was recorded as above.

Omission of why the person made an unfavorable statement

Since then, "the victim has done a locked at the defendant's amusement center at the defendant's request and the defendant's defect intending to do an injury to the victim." In the court of the court of the court below, the victim has been given public notice since "the defendant has been aware of it as n't n't n't n' at the time of assault," and it is necessary to confirm the n't of registration.

In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that he was intending to attract, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is improper.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On July 22, 2017, the Defendant’s summary of the public prosecutor’s office’s assertion of mistake of the facts was investigated by considering the victim D, who was dead prior to his or her death on July 2, 2017, and was prosecuted on September 28, 2017 by the Incheon District Court’s Busan District Court’s Busan District Court, and was under criminal trial, the Defendant “the documents of trial have been written, and how stated;

Do not have made a statement as stated therein;

Omission of why the person made an unfavorable statement

In addition, “In relation to the investigation or trial of one’s own criminal case, the victim was injured as described in paragraph 1 of the judgment below for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of proviso to investigation, such as criminal complaint, and the statement.

2) The lower court’s judgment was duly adopted.