1. Examining the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of injury to the victim H on August 21, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence,

2. Examining the ground of appeal No. 2 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the ground of appeal by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, judged that the Defendant was habitually aware of violence with respect to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury) among the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, reversed the judgment of the first instance which acquitted the Defendant on the ground thereof and found the Defendant guilty. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. As to the third ground for appeal, in full view of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the defendant's age, occupation, type of criminal offense, motive, criminal process, result, etc., it is just that the court below ordered the defendant to disclose and notify personal information for two years, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the disclosure order and notification order.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.