Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found otherwise guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. After the occurrence of the instant case, the victim C consistently stated the Defendant’s act of violence in a very concrete and detailed manner, and the explanation of the situation is reasonable, on the following grounds: “The Defendant, who received clothes from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, shall accurately consider his/her face by drinking.”

In addition, E, which was immediately adjacent to the site of the case, clearly states in the court of original instance that “I clearly see that the defendant who suffered a shot clothes when the victim C is the victim. I also consider that the defendant is the victim D.”

Therefore, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as well as the evidence of the victim C and E as above, and the witness N's statement at the trial immediately following the case that the victim C was designated as the perpetrator, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable, as determined by the court below, since it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant used violence to the victims and used violence.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.