A. The Defendant did not commit violence or injury to the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the statements of the victims about the developments leading up to the assault and bodily injury are consistent in concrete and alternative, and the forms of assault and bodily injury of the defendant taken in CCTV located at the present site are consistent, ② the upper part of the victim C's elbbow part of the victim C appears to be difficult to go beyond its external appearance, it can be sufficiently recognized by the defendant as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the conditions for sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the principle of trial-oriented and directness, and there is an area unique to the first instance court in the determination of sentencing.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, new trial is required.