A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of sentencing, and improper sentencing) did not constitute a crime of assaulting the victim E by breathing the bat at the time of the instant case, or by flaging the bat of the said victim’s bat, or batling the fingers with the hand

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (amounting to 6 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument by explaining the grounds for its judgment.

B. In a case where the appellate court, even though there was no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial, intends to re-examine the first deliberation decision and ex post facto determine it, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first deliberation decision was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair because it is contrary to logical and empirical rules, etc. In addition, the appellate court should not reverse without permission any such exceptional circumstance (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017).

Based on the above legal principles, there is no objective reason that could affect the formation of a new conviction in the court below, and there is no reasonable circumstance to view that maintaining the judgment of the court below is considerably unfair when comparing the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below with the contents of the court below.

(d)

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As to the allegation of unfair sentencing by both parties

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).