A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant did not injure the victim E and assault the victim F. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court to be comprehensively admitted and examined the evidence legitimately admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact: (i) the victim E was from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to see and spread the Defendant’s left hand, and was in line with the Defendant’s right boom.

The consistent statement, 2. The victim F consistently stated in the court of the court below that the defendant knife his own knife, brate, and blag in the process of the judgment of the court below.

In light of the fact that the court below stated that the victims stated the situation at the time, and that the above victims' statement conforms to CCTV images in the restaurant where this case occurred, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim E suffered an injury and assaulted the victim F as stated in the court below's decision. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that there is no criminal record exceeding the fine imposed on the Defendant regarding the wrongful argument of sentencing.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victims until the trial of the case, and that the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.