A. As to Article 1-A of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant, around June 2014, did not seem to be a catism operating the above restaurant at the E cafeteria.

It is asked whether it has been or not, thereby moving to the prison.

There has been only the fact that there has been a statement.

As to the criminal facts of the judgment below, there is no fact between the Defendant and the “G cafeteria” operated by F around May 20, 2014.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances cited in the lower court’s judgment as a whole, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 1-A and Paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment

① There is no evidence of 112 reported materials, etc., consistent with the date and time of each crime as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 1 of the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, and the victims also seem to be unsatisfying the date and time of the crime. However, the victims stated that the Defendant released from the Cheongju prison in May 2014, and that it was difficult for them to avoid disturbance at the restaurant of each victim as stated in the lower judgment, and that the Defendant released from the prison on May 19, 2014, the date and time of the crime can be presumed to be around May 20, 2014.

(2) Contrary to this, it is difficult to recognize credibility because the contents of the statement of the defendant are frequently changed.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. On February 17, 2014, the Defendant committed a similar crime even during the repeated offense period after the execution of the above sentence was completed, and the victims operating a restaurant in the D customary market are retaliationed from the Defendant.