A. According to the testimony of K’s witness of the lower court, the Defendant did not commit an assault, and rather did so from G and H.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, such as the testimony of K’s witness at the lower court as well as the statement of the police interrogation protocol of G and H in relation to each police interrogation protocol, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on G while he/she saw drinking together with B, B, and C, as he/she was in a fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluor, as he/she was in a fluorous b

The defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of the facts alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if all of the circumstances alleged by the Defendant are considered as grounds of appeal.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.