A. Error of facts (as to the part concerning the crime of 2019 order2548), the Defendant did not assault the victim D by pushing ahead as stated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the part on the charge of 2019 Highest 2548 at the time of original adjudication: imprisonment with prison labor for two months, and the part on the charge of 2020 Highest 202 at the time of original adjudication: imprisonment with prison labor for six months and fine for one hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (as to the part concerning the crime of 2019 Highest 2548), the Defendant’s assaulted the victim D as stated in the facts charged, thereby causing injury to the victim D.

① Considering the fact that the victim D consistently stated the background, method, and part of the injury inflicted by the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, etc., the victim D’s statement contains any specific contents that are difficult to make a statement without direct experience, etc., there is credibility.

② In a case where the statements made by the same investigation agency and the statements made in the court in the pertinent case conflict with those made in the investigation agency, there is no rule of law that the testimony in the court should be trusted, and whether certain testimony or statements among conflicting testimony or statements should be cited as materials for fact-finding belongs to the free trial of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547, Sept. 23, 1986); C, the head guard, made a statement to the effect that “the police officer dispatched after receiving the report 112 after the crime of this case had testified to the effect that “the defendant had complied with the victimD”; E reversed the statements made by the investigation agency to the effect that “I would be liable for the investigation of the crime of this case under the circumstances known to the defendant,” and that E continues to work in C operated by the former state of the defendant, and E.