A. As to the crime No. 1 of the facts stated in the judgment below, the defendant did not assault the victim.

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

2. Determination

가. 사실 오인 주장에 대하여 그러나 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의해 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 직접 목격자인 증인 E은 수사기관 및 법정에서 ‘ 당시 피고인이 피해자의 얼굴이나 머리 부분을 먼저 때렸고, 그 후 피고인과 피해자가 멱살을 잡고 싸웠다’, ‘ 당시 피해자도 피고인을 때리고, 넘어진 피고인의 머리를 발로 걷어찼다’ 고 진술하였는바, 그 진술이 구체적이고 일관성이 있을 뿐만 아니라, 직장 동료인 피고인에게 불리한 진술도 그대로 하고 있는 것에 비추어 신빙성이 있는 점, ② 당시 현장에 있던 증인 J도 ‘ 피고인이 피해자의 얼굴을 직접 때리는 것을 보지는 못했지만, 피고인과 피해자가 서로 멱살을 잡고, 욕설을 하는 상황에서 피해 자가 피고인에게 “ 왜 얼굴에 손을 대냐

In full view of the facts stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant abused the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime committed by the lower judgment, in view of the following: (a) as well as the specific and consistent statement, the statement is consistent with the witness E’s statement; and (b) the statement unfavorable to the Defendant, who is a workplace partner, is also in the same manner consistent with the witness E’s statement; and (c) there is credibility.

Recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, it seems that the degree of damage to the victims is not excessive, and it is recognized that the crime of fraud for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive and the crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

2) However, the defendant was punished for the same crime.