A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in this case where he was unilaterally assaulted by the victims from their daily behaviors and did not cause the victim D or the victim E to be pushed ahead of it, which is doubtful of credibility and only believed that the above victims and witnesses' statements are light, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unless otherwise specified in the grounds of unfair sentencing, the Defendant is the first offender who does not have any criminal power and supports both his spouse and two children while engaging in labor, and the Defendant was aware of having committed an assault from the victims to have injured them, and there are circumstances to consider the victim D’s vision in the process of resisting the accident by the negligence of the victims, such as the victim D’s satisfing, leading to the instant crime, etc., in light of the fact that the victim D’s satch distance in the process of resisting the accident, the Defendant’s 70,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, the statements of victims and witnesses are reliable, while the defendant's appeal is hard to believe it as it is. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the basis of each evidence of the judgment is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

Although the statements of victims and the F, a restaurant operator, H and his wife G have a little difference in each of the detailed matters, this seems to be due to the distortion or mistake of natural memory following the passage of time, and instead, the following facts are generally stated in the following points.

1) On April 14, 2018, the Defendant is “C” located in Daejeon Seosung-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “C”).