A. The Defendant did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the accused of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the first instance trial, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion in the lower part of “a summary of evidence” and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court of first instance by comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance. A thorough examination of the aforementioned judgment is conducted by the court of first instance. ① The victim consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of first instance to the effect that “the victim was assaulted by the defendant and two persons” and explained the contents of the assault in a relatively concrete manner; ② The witness F also made a statement consistent with the victim’s statement to the effect that “B and the defendant were fighting with the victim” in the investigative agency and the court of first instance; ③ the defendant stated that the defendant was unable to memory the facts at the time of the initial police investigation at the time of the charge at the time of the initial police investigation; and ③ the defendant made a statement that he was unable to memory the victim at the time of the charge. As such, the above judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and there is no error

B. Although the Defendant’s criminal liability is not easy in light of the background and content of the crime committed in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s damage recovery.